I am signed up to take the June LSAT and I am behind on my course. I am currently 77% of the way through the CC meaning that I have 50 hours left to finish it. I have not done any PT's since my diagnostic. I have about a month until my test. Do I push through the 50 hours of CC or do I jump into PT's and do that for the next month?

The gap is the owners has right to destory the art works from the ethical point of view even if the owner possess it legally. The premise is the possess it legally , and destory ethically is the core.

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

Can anyone explain this question for me? #help

Admin note: edited title

Can someone explain to me how Japan is a “model” if they are in a shortage. I’ve been trying to understand this for the past 6hrs

Looking for someone who I can BR with for the June LSAT (BRing with someone has shown to help out for both accountability and discussion of questions), Scoring 163-166 over my last 6 PT's, looking for someone who scores in a similar range and wants to BR and bounce ideas off of for methods/Q strategies/ Etc.

Reply below if you are interested!

Well i speedran through the cc and the variety in the number of questions was initially pretty difficult for me to properly adjust to, given that the methods listed in the cc are somewhat distinct from each other. I tried a section and struggled. However, now that I consciously take note of the main point, premise, and maybe some implied basis for support, the questions just seem to be going right for me. I'm still not where I want to be, but it's a start. Has anyone else been where I am? If so, has this method of just having an insane focus on the mp, premise, and support been of greater use to you than using conditional logic, especially in questions where it gets particularly tricky to use cl?

Hello 7Sagers,

Anyone have an alternate way from JY's of conceptualizing the game board set up on this one?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-24-section-4-game-3/

Happy studying!

This is the question I found in PT 19 section 1, third game.

If F is assigned to b2, G is assigned to b2.

If V is assigned to b1, W is assigned to b2.

Does it mean that if F is in b1, G can be b2 or b1?

Does it mean that V is in b2, W can be in b1 or b2?

I follow the logic F b2 -> G b2, but not the opposite direction, so G can be in any position when F is in b1.

I hope it is correct.

Can two arguments that are contrapositives of one another be considered parallel in a parallel argument question? #help

Why is the correct answer D? As opposed to E, I can understand that no where in the text does it show that in order for a consumer to purchase the merchandise, they must have the ability to verify any and all claims regarding it. Yet, for choice D, I am having a hard time understanding why there would be a contradiction made.

Hello everyone, I am planning on taking the June 2022 LSAT… I have been studying for a while… I am having a hard time getting my practice test scores to where I really need them to be and really dont know where to start in diagnosing where I am going wrong… I am feeling a little overwhelmed. Any guidance would be appreciated :)

Does this mean that the sufficient alone is enough for the conclusion to be drawn and once the conclusion can be drawn, the necessary is a must?

[I am posting on behalf of a 7Sage user. Please feel free to leave your comments below. Thank you for your help!]

Hi I just did a logic game in PT9 (S3 G3). I was wondering if you know of another logic game in the practice question bank that is similar to PT9 S3 G3? I would like to practice a similar game type under a different scenario.

Anyone have advice on determining when a flaw question has jumped from a correlation to a cause and effect argument? Each flaw question I do with correlation and causation in the mix, I never can identify when the AC is 'infers cause from mere correlation'. Any help is appreciated! :)

What is the difference, can someone please enlighten me.

I’m having a really difficult time with LR. Is there an approach that works for you when taking the test under timed conditions? For instance, MBT means do this; MSS means look for this. Sort of a guide or plan of action for each type of question.

Hi everyone, I've been rolling around in this question for a very long time and still have some fundamental questions so would be great if someone can confirm my thinking/help answer those questions. Thanks in advance!

Stimulus breakdown:

P: The robots that are being designed are the ones that can be maintained with the least expensive, least skilled human labor possible

C: So robots won't eliminate demeaning work, they're just gonna basically substitute one "demeaning job" for another

In more human terms, the argument is saying that if there are 100 people assembling car parts in a factory (assuming that we call that a demeaning job), then the addition of robots will basically take those 100 jobs and turn it into 100 jobs of monitoring the robots (which they also assume is a demeaning job).

My question: It seems like this question makes us assume that "hazardous and demeaning work" is the same as "least expensive, least skilled human labor." Is this a flaw or is this something we could be allowed to assume?

Answer Choices:

A) Using 2-step test, this does happen in that he ignores that some jobs might be eliminated if the factories don't use robots. But this is not the flaw because even if he did consider that, it doesn't hit on the conclusion that robots are really just substituting and not reducing the net # of demeaning jobs

B) Not descriptively accurate, so fails step 1

C) Descriptively accurate - he doesn't specify what the engineers think but fails step 2 because that's not an issue. Even if he hits on the sentiments of the engineer, it doesn't weaken his argument that the robots are just subbing demeaning jobs and not even decreasing the net #

D) Not descriptively accurate - there's not any fear that's happening here

E) Descriptively accurate and if he did acknowledge that it's possible that 1 robot could replace the 100 shitty jobs in the care factory with just 1, then his conclusion that "robots will not eliminate demeaning work" no longer holds.

My question here is though, is it okay that a weakening answer basically completely destroys the argument? I know we can't attack the premise but not sure where that stands for the conclusion/broader argument.

#help

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

Hey 7Sagers,

Here's the official April 2022 LSAT Discussion Thread.

REMINDER: Under your Candidate Agreement, you may not discuss the details of any specific LSAT questions at any time. For the April LSAT, general discussion of what sections you had, or how difficult you found a given section, or speculation about which sections were scored or unscored, is prohibited until after 9pm ET, Tuesday, May 3rd.

Posts that violate these rules will be taken down and may result in disciplinary action from LSAC. Let’s work together to ensure the test is fair to everyone, and not share information before everyone has taken the test.

Some examples of typical comments:

✅ The following comments are okay 🙆‍♀️

❌ The following comments are over the line 🙅‍♂️

Good luck to everyone taking the April LSAT!

**Please keep all discussions of the April 2022 LSAT here!**(/red)

So I picked C during BR after I had mapped it out using lawgic but turns out E is the answer. I dont really understand why E is answer. Help please :)

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

Can someone help me out with this one? Apparently the correct answer is E, but I'm not particularly able to pin down the argument structure or understand what it is trying to say and why it is flawed in the respect indicated by the correct answer choice.

Thanks!!

(PT9 S4- #13)

J: worked 3 years and will vacation 4 weeks this year

Everyone who worked 1-4 years entitled to 3 week vacation

Apply half of unused vacation to next year.

So it makes sense to me that J had two weeks left over from last year so she got half of that this year

(A) J did not use two weeks in which she was entitled to

(C) J only used one week in which she was entitled to

What is the difference between the two and how can I distinguish them?

I selected choice A, but the right answer is B. Can someone go over the answers and clarify please?

I submitted my paperwork for accommodations on April 7th (for the June test). This whole time it has been "under review" on LSAC and I looked today and there was nothing indicating that I had submitted paperwork. Ugh...I'm super frustrated. I emailed LSAC so I hope they get back to me soon. I never got an email indicating the I had submitted paperwork for accommodations. It just kept saying that they were under review so I assumed they received them. Has this happened to anyone before?

With this question, I chose (C) over (D) due to 'becoming warmer'.

As (b) is eliminated with the same reason, I thought this whole passage doesn't talk about the future, but only focuses on what happened in the past 100 years. I got the detail that "greenhouse is the major cause" should be included, but (c) was more compelling to me as 'becoming warmer' seemed like a huge red flag for me.

I don't know why I get confused and waste time on relatively easy and clear-cut questions for others.

Overall, I think I'm too obsessed with details and words at this point. I tried to build the habit of not loosing details and tried to balance between holding on to the main structure, but now I feel like I have a serious problem of just maybe reading skill in general..?

Hope someone could give advice on my thought process...Really need help to improve on RC

Huge thanks in advance!!

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

Explanation Video: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-84-section-1-passage-1-passage/

I get the questions correct under timed conditions, however, when I do blind review I change my answers from correct to incorrect.