How does AC A weaken this? I chose AC D but I didn’t get the relevance of A/couldn’t translate what it was saying.

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

What does "in an absence of a threat to anyone's health or safety" have to do with anything?

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

Hi everyone! I'm struggling with LR at the moment. I'm working my way through the Loophole by Ellen Cassidy, and am working through the CLIR-Translation Drills in the book at the moment (been using 7sage mainly for practice sets, LG, and analytics to date). I'm trying to improve my "active reading" skills and memorization -- I'm a big annotater and note-taker, and I like taking my time with reading to fully understand concepts, but I know that that won't cut it on the LR section of the LSAT. The issue with my progress so far on the Loophole and with its CLIR-Translation drills is that it's unclear if I'm doing the CLIR-Translation Drills correctly and therefore hard to tell if I'm heading in the right direction? Maybe I just need to be more patient, but I'm wondering if anyone has been in my position before/ or if anyone has experience with the Loophole? Do they advise I push through until I really get to a place where I really feel like I know the content? I REALLY want to improve my LR score so any help would be appreciated.

JY Ping draws out the game board/game boards in his Logic Game videos. I guess we can say that is the standard way of drawing these; however, I have came to a conclusion that I will never draw the exactly same game board when I tackle the practice test problems. In that essence, is everyone's game board slightly different even though we are using the teachings of the same instructor (JY Ping)?

Can someone help me out with this question!! I don't get how the answer choices relate to the stimulus???

Does someone mind explaining why D can't be right? I think A makes sense but also feel like paranoid, in the stimulus, is a condition that keeps changing along with changes in society.

Maybe it's because it doesn't most strongly support the answer, but idk I can still see it so would love to hear from others re their thinking. TIA!

Hi everyone,

I just finished reviewing LR questions for PT92 and I had a really hard time with questions 23 and 25. After reviewing the video explanation, I realized they're phenomenal examples of focusing on the big picture of the stimulus, parsing it out from the details, and also focusing on the cookie-cutter flaws. Can anyone recommend questions that are similar to them that would be good to practice?

Thank you!

I'm getting into the later PT's and I'm finding that they have started including those multiple passage prompts in every Reading Comp section now.

Any tips for these specific passages? They usually give me the most trouble on time, correct answers, and general fatigue because I (naturally) feel like I have to juggle more information than with a single passage. Any specific strategy that has helped any of you deal with these ones?

I've read elsewhere that target times are the average time taken by people who go -0/-1 on the section.

But how is it that some sections' target times add up to more than 35 minutes? For example, PT62, PT57, PT88, PT1, among others.

Please someone help explain why it is C

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

Hello there, I was wondering if anyone could give me some suggestions about how to review of the LG section. I have finished all sample questions of LG in the core curriculum and reviewed these questions with Fool Proof Method. However, moving forward, I don't know if I need to further finish all LG problem sets by type or just start to do PTs to practice under time constraints of a full test. Can anyone help me with this?

Hi All,

My question is: from "the more Xs, the more Ys", could I infer "the less Xs, the less Ys"?

This inference seems neither a valid nor a strongly supported inference to me, because we can't infer a negative corelation from a positive correlation. Still, I am very unsure. Anyone can share your thoughts?

Thanks a lot.

Leon

Hi, all!

I just took PT 90 and watched the RC explanation video for the comparative passages. I noticed that JY read Passage A, attempted the questions, then went back to read Passage B and answer/confirm any remaining questions.

Is this a good strategy to adopt? Thanks!

Hi everyone! I'm reviewing PT 78 Game 3 and I have a question about one of the conditional logic rules.

Rule 2 says that if H - L --> M - L

Original: H - L --> M - L

Contrapositive: L -M --> L --H

When I originally did this game, I split that rule into two possibilities:

This worked for me - I was able to get all the questions right based on this, and when I watched JY's video on splitting into game boards, every game board ended up falling under one of these two scenarios. HOWEVER, I'm not sure if this is the right way to interpret that rule based on conditional logic.

Independent of the rest of the rules in the game, does the original rule 2 allow for a situation where the necessary is satisfied (M - L), rule falls away, and we have L - H (so M - L - H)?

I am reviewing the RC section of the core curriculum. I was wondering if anyone could give me some suggestions about how to improve the reading speed. As a non-native English speaker, I had hard time finishing reading the full text of some passages (e.g. PT33 Sec 2) within 3.5 minutes. While I tried to speed up the reading, I had hard time grasping the gist, and thereby decreased the accuracy of the answer choices.

What should I do about these games? I'm foolproofing PT1-35 and I hit the stretch of PT10-16 and there was one pattern game on each and I was just dumbfounded. I couldn't do it on first glance and it has me worried if it pops up in 2022.

https://www.reddit.com/r/LSAT/comments/ajfrzi/comprehensive_list_of_rarely_tested_logic_games/

on that list, there was a 20 year gap between the pattern games. Why did it just come up in the mid 2010s again?

I'm just worried bc most of the misc games I've came across in PT1-35 had me paralyzed when I first saw them. Although, I think I wouldn't see some of those misc games on the newer LSATs like the train station and the pattern one with words(hopefully not). What are y'all thoughts and advices on this?

The question is asking for us to resolve the paradox. Basically, the question is saying that there is an increase in % and a decrease in the total population, and is asking us how this is possible.

Pre-phrase - The denominator (i.e. the total population must have decreased) That way, you have a higher %.

B - This is what the answer is, but the part specifically "in the year before last" threw me completely off. I googled what this means, and it basically translates to "two years ago"

But, how does that resolve the paradox? If two years ago, there was a substantial decline in the population, that doesn't solve the issue. If it were last year, that would totally make sense, but the year before last = 2 years ago which is already provided in the stimulus.

Are they alluding to two different times two years ago? (i.e. Maybe the death happened in the later part of the year whilst the 32 case count was from the earlier part of the year?)

Sorry if I am slow (I know, it's question #1), but that clause was a red flag for me that deterred me in choosing it.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-15-section-1-passage-1-questions/

Hey I just had a quick question and wondered if anyone had some advice on how to get through all 4 passages on the reading comp section. Accuracy isn't really my problem, it seems like time is as I can only complete 2 passages. Any advice? How fast are some of you reading?

Hi!

I'm so confused about the strategy for elimination on MOR questions.

I eliminated b and d straight away reading 'positive'. I thought the answer choice should include words of 'certainty' due to 'we can be sure'. Is my elimination strategy too extreme? I usually do this on method of reasoning first eliminating explicitly wrong answers from several cues, but I think for this one was too extreme to just eliminate right away?

Besides, I usually separate 'quantitative' and 'qualitative' + overall structure cues, and match three kinds of cues to each answer choice, eliminate and confirm. Is this strategy okay?

Huge thanks in advance for someone who can advise me for this questions and overall strategy!

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-70-section-4-question-17/

I chose correctly during the actual PT but picked wrong during BR. I'm having trouble finding the conclusion in the passage to find the correct inference. I picked AC: A because I thought the other choices were irrelevant.

Can someone help me out here. This question and the way it's worded is giving me a great deal of difficulty.

From what I can gather the argument has two premises – a principle and a fact:

P1 - if competent to pass judgement on a subject → don't lack knowledge of the subject

P2 - Political "know-how" is a type of knowledge learned through apprenticeship and experience.

C - Therefore, if competent to judge whether a particular policy is fair to all → seasoned politician

In my estimation, this argument needs two things: First, it has to show that a "seasoned politician" doesn't lack knowledge of a subject. It does this by making the assumption that "if you have political know-how → you're a seasoned politician;" Second, it must then assume that "political know-how" and "[not lacking] knowledge of a subject" are the same thing. Reason being: Just because you have a type of knowledge, i.e. political know-how, doesn't mean you don't lack knowledge of politics. I feel like AC D then would best encapsulate this flaw.

Does this reasoning check out?

Also, if this question made sense to you intuitively would you mind explaining your thought process when reading the stimulus and identifying the flaw?

Many thanks.

help I'm having an issue in explaining why Answer choice D is a better than A. I feel like A addresses the stem better, what am I missing?

Admin note: Please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description of question]"

Please refer to the 7Sage Forum Rules

Explanation Video: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-2-section-3-game-1/

I will soon finish the CC and plan to fool proof all games from tests 1-35 before I start taking PTs. My question is: when fool proofing, should you BR a game each time you complete it? I realize that, in most instances, you will do a game multiple times and watch JY's explanation for the game multiple times, so should you BR each game each time you complete them? Or should you go straight to the explanation video once you've done the game two or three times?

Does anyone have blind review tips for reading comp? I am struggling to successfully BR that section.

I am a bit confused with this question. This is a classic cause --> effect stimulus and we are being asked to strengthen the cause and effect relationship.

To strengthen, there are three ways:

1/ Show that cause happens --> effect happens

2/ Show that cause does not happen --> effect does not happen

3/ Show that an alternate explanation is not responsible for both cause and effect

A/ What can't this be the third option? Doesn't the fact that there is no greater incidence of kidney disease for folks who have the bacteria in their stomach rule out the alternative explanation that kidney disease was not responsible for both the ulcer and bacteria?

E/ I understand that this is (no cause --> no effect) and is a strengthener, but I picked A since I was moving quickly in this section and to me, AC A seemed like an obvious alternative explanation that was being ruled out.

What am I missing?

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