I was one of the people whose exam begun and then crashed afterwards in the middle of it.

If you haven't yet:

Submit an Official Compliant ("connectivity issues AND press cancel score, NOT keep score)

Give a brief description

Submit

They will contact you in 2 to 3 days about rescheduling. She also said after you can contact proctoru to schedule tomorrow or Tuesday if slots are available. Regardless, the scores will be out by October 27 either way!!!

She had also said that the 21st is def one of the days for rescheduling, but they are probably gonna have more options due to the velocity of people whose test crashed during the exam. I wanted to tell you guys because I have tried emailing, calling, trying via proctoru and got not helpful response. I hope this helps you!

I am scheduled for tomorrow, but it looks like LSAC is a mess today :/. Has anyone even been able to finish the whole test without issues? Any advice for Sunday test takers?

Also sorry to everyone that has had issues with the exam, I know it must have been extremely frustrating. I hope y'all are able to get through to LSAC soon!

The question itself is rather easy - (D) is pretty clearly something the argument is assuming, and necessarily so. Negating it makes a mockery of the argument.

However, I did spend quite a bit of time on this one, because I've always learned that "most" answers are virtually never correct on necessary assumption questions, because negating a "most" statement just takes you from 51% (or more) to 50% (or less), so negating a "most" assumption does virtually nothing to the argument. I'm hoping someone can clarify the guidance on "most" statements on necessary assumption questions. Thanks in advance!

(D) is clearly correct, but I'm having trouble articulating why (C) doesn't work. Here is my articulation:

At its core I think it comes down to a necessary vs. sufficient concept. Not like "C is sufficient but not necessary" but like this: the stimulus is saying that in order to help a patient heal, the psychotherapist MUST focus on positive change in relationships. The negation of (C) would be "there are at least some patients who will not find relief by changing their relationships." BUT the stimulus wasn't saying "if the psychotherapist focuses on positive change, the patient will be helped," it was saying "focusing on positive change is necessary in order to help." So it doesn't kill the argument to say "there are some cases where positive change didn't help a patient."

Maybe that isn't as muddled as I thought but any input would be helpful. Thanks!

Can somebody clarify for me the distinction between B and E for Question 20? Aren’t the two choices basically saying the same thing? The only difference being that B specifies that both are flying their respective planes. The rule states that “no plane flies without a qualified pilot aboard,” but doesn’t indicate they need to be flying the plane. Similarly, E states that Cindy is in plane 2, therefore sufficiently satisfying the rule’s requirement. So, what’s the difference here? How do you choose between the two?

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

Explanation Video: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-3-section-1-game-4/

How is A correct? Can someone provide textual support.

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

Hi, I would like to seek some advice!

esp if you are focusing on LR/RC without sacrificing your LG performence.

In my case,

since my LG has been a relative strength for me (-0 ~ -2, if I doing some LGs everyday),

so recently I've been mainly focus on drilling LR/RC.

But I noticed my "game-sense" (logic instinct, fast deduction, etc) became a bit rustier

and thus will bombed 1 game so ends up -4.

So what do you do to keep your LG sharp while focusing on LR/RC?

(I personally found doing drills for all three section impossible given I've a full time job; my study time (1-2 hours every workday) are mostly spend on LR/RC drills)

Many thanks in advance.

I'm really struggling with this

So this is a NA question.

Both options D and E make sense to me, but E is supposed to be the correct answer.

E says "anyone to whom safety is an important factor in purchasing a car will consult an objective source of vehicle safety information before buying"

But what if the consumer believed ads and promos were objective sources of vehicle safety info? If D. was the correct answer it would make sense, because if they were aware that ads weren't objective and they only viewed those, safety probably isn't that important to them.

Maybe safety is their #1 factor but they truly believe ads and promos are objective sources of information. They could just be very unaware and ignorant and believe ads are an objective source.

Let's say health is my number one priority, and I'm drinking these shakes that contained tons of sugar and chemicals because the commercials say they guarantee fat loss. I didn't consult a nutritionist because (for arguments sake I'm just stupid) and I truly wholeheartedly believe the commercials provide an adequate source of information. You really can't say health isn't my number one priority, like you can't say safety isn't their priority. Now if I KNEW the commercials were full of lies and I still drank the shakes anyways, you could say health isn't my number one priority.

Explanation Video: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-75-section-3-question-15/

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

So I didn't have a pre-phase and felt that all the answer choices were wrong. How on earth is the correct answer supported by the stimulus? It sounds like some random reasonable statement that makes sense in a common sense sort of way, and isn't anything that needs a stimulus, let alone this one. Like I suppose if your mussels have nuclear waste in them, I wouldn't eat them but this just doesn't sound like a supported statement. It sounds more like everyday advice against eating raw chicken or rotten milk. Did anyone else feel like the same way?

I ended up picking C because its said bags of zebra mussels were "suspended" and that made me think they were floating midwater. I ended up googling photos of zebra mussels clogging pipes and apparently that's not the case. They are literally stuck to the pipes.

I recently posted this question on Reddit, however, I am not sure that the people who responded have enough experience with the test to get exactly what I am asking. So,

Would you guys recommend AGAINST (in questions which require that I analyze an argument)… First, quickly skimming/hunting for the conclusion, then quickly searching for the supporting premise or premises. As opposed to reading the stim from top to bottom?

I know that in order to anticipate the answer correctly all I need are these to things, the rest (background) just serves to slow me down or set me up for trap answers. Also, I am able to shave of a few seconds per question. However, I just started doing this and not sure if it’s a smart idea to make habit.

I am able to do this for most question types including;

strengthen

weaken

required and basic assumptions

SA/PSA

Flaw

Match flaw

What do you guys think? Do you already do this?

Thanks in advance 🙏🏽

I am having problems with Author Inference questions in RC and was wondering if there was a way to practice that rather than practicing only law, humanities, art, or science passages. I find that no matter the topic, I struggle with making inferences so if there was any questions you suggest from any PTs in particular please help and let me know how to best practice this!

So yea, I feel silly asking such a question lol.

But what does "no" mean in it's function as a response to another person's argument?

For example, in a disagreement question:

Person 1: A, therefore B. (insert whatever you want for A and B. Make the argument valid or invalid, whatever)

Person 2: No. (rest of stimulus).

So, if I were to read all of Person 1's argument, and then only read the "No." from Person 2's argument, how should I interpret that?

Does "no" ONLY mean that B does not follow from A, in which case B could still be true, you just can't arrive @ B from ONLY A?

Does/could "no" mean that there is a simply a disagreement about context and that B actually does follow from A?

I'm only interested in the function of no within the scope of how the LSAT generally uses this word in disagreement questions.

Thanks!

Hey everyone,

I been looking at this argument for a couple days and can't find the flaw. Can someone please help me find it. Thank you.

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-2-question-15/

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-33-section-1-question-21/

This is the Attacks on an Opponent in a Debate Question.

I'm not sure why the answer works. Can someone explain it to me?

Can someone help diagram the question below? I'm having a lot of trouble wrapping my head around it.

Manuscripts written by the first time authors generally do not get serious attention by publishers except when these authors happen to be celebrities. My manuscript is unlikely to be taken seriously by the publishers for I am a first time author who is not a celeb.

I diagrammed "except" the same way I would diagram "unless".

not CELEB --> FIRST TIME AU OR not SERIOUS ATTN

When I looked this up, the CORRECT diagram was:

not CELEB --> not FIRST TIME AU OR not SERIOUS ATTN

My first question, Why is it: not FIRST TIME AU?

Second, I'm having trouble diagramming the parallel argument below for the same reasons:

"Fruit salad that contains bananas is ordinarily a boring dish unless it contains two or more exotic fruits. This fruit salad has bands in it, and the only exotic fruit is a guava."

I diagrammed this as follows:

not TWO OR MORE --> contains bananas OR boring

But the correct way to diagram it is:

not TWO OR MORE --> not contains bananas OR boring

Why?

So I work on this question. It takes "otherwise" as indicator for bicondition. I wonder which course JY mention about "otherwise"

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-26-section-3-question-22/

Hi everyone I'm having trouble with this question. I think I sort of understand it but if someone can clarify any details Im missing I'd appreciate it.

Basically the citizen states he will do two things to ensure incumbents aren't re-elected. 1) campaign against all these incumbents 2) vote for the incumbent who represents his own neighborhood because she's the only one that knows what she is doing. He then goes on to argue that if everyone in Mooresville follows his example there will be a change in the councils membership.

the question stem then states "assuming that each citizen in Mooresville is allowed to vote only for a city council representative...."

so were proving what must be true for the council membership to change.

A) is true because the citizen in the stimulas is making the exception of voting for an incumbent in his neighborhood that he think will do a good job. But if everyone else from different neighborhoods does the same thing there stands a possibility that all the incumbents will be voted back in and do a bad job all over again in dealing with municipal finances so the voters in answer choice A shouldn't make the same exception that the citizen is making but instead the voters should vote for other representatives, which will substantially change the councils membership.

is this correct and is my reasoning of in any way...

Thanks

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-18-section-2-question-03/

I struggled with this question and I would like some feedback on my thought process:

The conclusion is that widespread, grassroots efforts towards new, stricter controls are unlikely at this time. We know that people generally worry about only the most obvious public health problem. We also know that ozone is very dangerous and that there is a widespread water contamination problem that most people know presents a bigger threat to their community. So here, I said to myself, for the conclusion to be valid, it is not enough to show that most people are aware that water contamination is a bigger threat, it has to tie to the previous idea of people only caring about the most obvious health problem. Accordingly, the water contamination problem must be the more obvious one. In other words, the generalization that people only care about the most obvious health problems explains why most people see water contamination was the bigger threat, and therefore, are unlikely to dedicate efforts to the other, less obvious public health problem - ozone. So I chose C, whereas the correct answer is B.

Where did I go wrong? What's the right way of thinking about this question?

I have a question on interpreting this point:

At least two compositions are performed either after F and before R, or after R and before F.

I think normally the LSAT is going for F-X-X-R or R-X-X-F (with min 2-X) but being extra cautious in doing this problem I also included a possibility of X-X-R-F-X-X and X-X-F-R-X-X since it doesn't indicate the two compositions must be the same nor must they be between them. Is this incorrect to interpret it this way? Is it safe to assume it will ways be referring to just the first set ups? (F-X-X-R)

Hey everyone,

I had a question about undermining the conclusion of an argument. Does it have to help undermine a premise that is stated because that is how the conclusion is arrived at? Or can it be an entirely new premise? For instance, if the conclusion is that increased energy consumption is bad because we are already too dependent on technology and too many kids are on their phones all the time, and one option said studies conclusively show children aren't on their phones at an unhealthy rate and that technology dependence has replaced drug dependence, would that be the right answer choice since it most directly undermines the premises of the conclusion? Versus another option that says increased energy consumption is bad because global warming is directly affected by energy consumption and our planet is on the verge of falling apart, I feel like that better undermines the conclusion if we are just looking at the conclusion alone. But if it is undermining the specific conclusion that the author came to then I guess the initial choice would be better? This might be a super dumb question I just keep spending way too much time on easy questions because I'm overthinking it.

I want to try some practice tests skipping a RC section to see if it would be beneficial to my overall score. I feel like I often get hung up on that one difficult passage. Are there any tricks to determine, without wasting too much time, which passage I should skip and which I should not?

I got down to B and C and do agree with JY that, content wise, both are correct. I see people in the comments and in multiple forums nitpicking at details to try to see why B is incorrect, but I'm just not convinced. What is it about B that makes it an inferior choice to C? I thought both were correct.

If any admin see this, you don't need to post the link to the explanation video. I already know where it is!

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

Explanation Video: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-89-section-3-passage-3-questions/

Hey everyone lately I have been scoring -2 on LR ,-1 LG and -7 on RC. Does anyone have tips I could use to help improve my RC score before the October test? I've found difficulty with the Authors Attitude and Analogy questions.

I get why (A) works but can someone please explain why (C) doesn’t? It seems to be extremely well-supported by P3: “Because the value of software lies in its form of expression, protection should be given only for particular applications - expressions of algorithms in an encoded form.”

HELP!!!

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# (P#) - brief description of the stimulus"