Hi all -

I started my course of study focusing pretty much exclusively on LGs (my first PT was a 159, -4 RC, -13 LG, -avg 5.5 on LR, so the what needed improving seemed clear) and am now in a place where I'm pretty happy with them.

The problem is now LR. On average I'm still -3 or -4 per section, and I just can't seem to crack the most difficult questions. Get them wrong ~50% of the time on BR, get them wrong in the little bit of time I have to check my answers in section.

So - any tips or strategies for approaching difficult (4 or 5 pip) LRs? Thanks in advance!

I watched JY's explanation video and I see why B is correct, but I'm still confused why D isn't either. It says "if ALL farmers..." in the premise, so how isn't it overlooking that possibility?

After having took 5 practice tests and done probably 50 different logic games, I have come across my number 1 enemy: drawing the initial board. Not even figuring inferences, but simply figuring out if it’s sequence or grouping and drawing a board accordingly. Does anyone have any tips for figuring out the kind of board to draw?

This is an inference question and I put the answer as A.

Can anyone explain to me why A is incorrect and why D is correct?

Hi! I’m looking to form a study group or find study buddies for the October LSAT. Mainly to hold each other accountable and even go on FaceTime/video call to study together. My availability varies, but I am usually deee evenings into the night as I work full-time. Let me know!

One of my main law school choices is UCLA. But the deadline to submit the application to UCLA is February 1, 2023, which is also the date which January 2023 LSAT results will be released. Is it possible to apply on exactly February 1?

Is there a way to request results on the LSAT to be released early?

Explanation (2 mins): https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-40-section-1-question-21/

Question 21 on PrepTest 40 Section 1:

Pizzerias are the only restaurants that routinely record the names, addresses, and menu selections of their customers. Simply by organizing these data, they can easily identify regular, average, and infrequent customers. Therefore, pizzerias utilize direct-mail marketing more effectively than do other restaurants.

Which one of the following, if assumed, enables the argument's conclusion to be properly inferred?

The answer: Answer choice E

Restaurants that routinely record names, addresses, and menu selections of their customers always utilize direct-mail marketing more effectively than do any other restaurants.

What? How are we able to conclude such a strong statement?

From my understanding, the argument structure is very simple. The second sentence in this question is complete fluff. The first sentence provides the premise and the third sentence is the conclusion.

Let's use variables to diagram the logic:

A = Restaurants that routinely record

B = Pizzerias

C = Utilize direct-mail marketing more effectively

First sentence gives: A -> B (Restaurants that record -> Pizzerias)

Answer choice E provides: A -> C (Restaurants that record -> utilize direct-mail)

Conclusion says: B -> C (Pizzerias -> utilize direct-mail)

But using the premise in the first sentence and the assumption provided by the answer, we only get B some C. We can conclude that SOME pizzerias utilize direct-mail marketing more effectively than other restaurants. The conclusion is a general blanket statement that would include all pizzerias (I think).

What am I misunderstanding here? This question has been giving me a lot of headache, thanks to those who took the time to discuss in advance!

Is there a limit to how many times you can buy score preview with the new rules? I used it for the August 2022 test, and I bought it for the October test too. I'm trying to register for November, but it's not showing up in my cart.

I have recently come across a challenging hurdle for me in setting up game boards. I have been splitting boards when i get an X/Y inference but when I watch the explanation video JY doesnt do it, but he will for other games. Is there a clear cut way to know when to split a game board? and if not is there something I can infer off the bat from the rules that would hint whether or not I needed to split it?

I find it very helpful in LR and RC to silently mouth the words while I am reading. It helps me better taken in the information, is this allowed on the test or will my mouth moving get flagged?

I noticed a few posts asking for tips on weaken questions, and was in the middle of writing a response. But I thought this would make more sense as a general post. If you're struggling with level 4 and 5 weaken questions, this might be helpful.

TL;DR = You can also weaken an argument by pointing out an inconsistency in the author's reasoning. It's not just about showing why the conclusion could be false despite the evidence being true. And it's not just about trying to directly counter the assumption.

As a preliminary matter, when weakening an argument, we're primarily trying to weaken the reasoning of the argument. That's something the curriculum emphasizes. But there are actually several ways by which one can weaken the reasoning of an argument.

One way is to directly counter the assumption. So, take this sample argument:

Penguins are chubby.

So, they're cute.

The assumption here is that if something is chubby, then it's cute. So we can weaken the argument by showing that there's at least one thing that's chubby that isn't cute.

(Now, if your instinct is to say, but that doesn't mean penguins aren't cute - they can still be cute. And chubbiness can still be one factor that contributes to their cuteness; it can still be a + on the scale of cuteness. You're right - but we've still weakened the argument by showing that their premise does not automatically prove their conclusion. The author of the argument was assuming that the chubbiness of penguins, by itself, without anything more, would guarantee their cuteness. We've shown that that assumption is wrong, which hurts the argument.)

That way of weakening an argument I think is most natural, and most susceptible to an approach that focuses on "Why could the conclusion be wrong even if the evidence is true?"

But another way to weaken reasoning is by showing that the assumption would lead to an inconsistency in the author's position. And this way of weakening is something that can escape one focused solely on pointing out a "loophole" (to borrow the parlance of the popular book). For example, let's add a bit to the stimulus:

Many animals in the world are not cute. Snakes, skunks, and rhinos, for example.

But, penguins are chubby.

So, penguins are cute.

One assumption of this argument is that if something is chubby, then it's cute. Do you see how we would weaken the argument by pointing out that rhinos are chubby? If we accept the author's assumption, then the author would compelled to think that rhinos are cute - but that contradicts something the author believes. But if we don't accept the assumption, in order to preserve the author's belief that rhinos are not cute, then the author's premise no longer leads to their conclusion about cute penguins. So we've caught the author in a contradiction - their affirmed position on rhinos conflicts with the assumption underlying their argument about penguins. Argument = weakened. Notice how if you go into the answers on this argument thinking "Why could penguins not be cute even if they're chubby?", you won't immediately notice the logic of the answer "Rhinos are chubby."

Now the example above demonstrates what one might call an "indirect" showing that the assumption is false. Rather than directly giving an example of something that's chubby but not cute, we've shown that the author's own beliefs commit them to something that contradicts that assumption - thus, the assumption is false.

Here's another version of "indirectly" showing that the assumption is false by way of inconsistency.

Devi said she'd be in Los Angeles at 9pm.

Thus, we can expect to see her in LA at that time.

We can weaken this argument by pointing out: "She said she'd be in San Francisco at 9pm." This weakens because if we accept the author's assumption that she'll be where she said she'd be, then she'd have to be in both LA and SF at 9pm. Clearly that's impossible, which means the assumption is wrong.

But this idea of inconsistency as a weakener also extends to situations in which we're not actually showing that the assumption is false.

Here's an example:

Sarah says that Paradorn, our new international student, was born in Thailand.

But his accent does not sound like that of someone born there.

Thus, Paradorn was probably born in a different part of Southeast Asia.

Now one way to think about this is to ask, "Why might he actually be from Thailand despite not having an accent that sounds like someone born there?" And if this your question, you'll be naturally disposed to answers that point out that you can be from a country without having an accent associated with speakers of that country. For example, he might have been born in Thailand but moved to a different place when he was young, which would explain his lack of an associated accent.

But what would you think about this answer: "Paradorn's accent does not sound like that of someone born in parts of Southeast Asia outside of Thailand."

This actually does weaken the argument, because the author's underlying assumption is that if one does not have an accent that sounds like that of someone born in a particular area, then that means one was probably not born in that area. By pointing out that his accent is not like that of someone born in SEA, we've caught the author in an inconsistency. According to their own assumption, we'd have to conclude that he probably wasn't born in the non-Thailand parts of SEA, either. But that goes against the author's own conclusion - so either the author's assumption is wrong, or the author's conclusion is wrong. Argument = weakened.

In my experience, this type of answer is a bit difficult to pick up on because most people would be mainly focused on showing why Paradorn actually could be from Thailand despite the lack of an accent. And it's tough to see how this answer gives us some positive reason to think he may have still been born in Thailand.

In addition, the logic of this answer seems to go against our initial instinct to question the relationship between being born in a particular place and having an accent associated with that place. Many of us would think "The lack of an accent doesn't really tell us much about where you were born." And then it would be weird to pick an answer that weakens by seeming to suggest that because he doesn't have an SEA accent, he's not from SEA. But the key is that this answer's logic isn't actually about countering the conclusion of the argument. It's about showing the author's inconsistency - if their assumption is true, then their conclusion doesn't make sense. And if their conclusion is true, then their assumption doesn't make sense. This does weaken the argument even if we have not actually shown that the author's conclusion is false or that their assumption is false. What we've shown is that at least one of them must be false.

This type of weakening logic, I think, is hard to recognize if your approach is limited only to asking "Why could the conclusion be false even if the premises are true?"

I am seeking any tips or strategies to help improve my thought process on Weakening Questions. No matter how many times I rewatch the lessons or do problem sets, I still cannot answer them correctly. I do well with Strengthening Questions, but for some reason my brain is not clicking with Weakening Questions. Help would be greatly appreciated! #help

I typically drill 35 min sections of the sections and have been doing so for late July and August before the August LSAT. I've only ever written 2 full lenght PTs the week of my LSAT. On my 2 PTs I scored a 157 and 158, but on my August LSAT got a 163. The LSAT I wrote on test day felt easier than my PTs, so should I see this a fluke? Does anyone else have any theories as to how this could have happened? Is this uncommon? Thanks

I got a 139 on my first LSAT. I payed for score preview and cancelled my score.

If I want to apply for Fall 2023 what would be the latest I can retake the test? I am thinking of signing up for January

I got my August LSAT score this morning and am very disappointed. On my last 6 PTs I scored 173, 170, 177, 175, 173, 175. I always took them under realistic testing conditions. I really expected to score in the 170s on the actual thing, but I got a 165. The only section I really found challenging was the RC, so I just don't know what happened. I have no idea what to do next, especially because I can't see what I got wrong. I feel very defeated. I signed up for October, and I'm just looking for some tips on how to go about preparing and staying optimistic. :( Has anyone else gone through this?

Just took PT82 and I've looked around on various forums regarding passage 3 'Judicial Candor' but I haven't seen much discussion on a certain issue within it. I struggled during timed and went -5 in RC which is pretty unusual for me (4 errors in that passage). I did manage to blind review all of them correctly given that I found my confusion lied in how I read Passage A. Namely, during my timed run I took passage A to be completely neutral on whether judicial candor should or should not be endorsed. During review, I basically realized that you had to read Passage A as an implicit endorsement. This then allows you to answer the questions with relative ease. I guess my biggest hang up is that this implicit reading seems to go directly against PT52 RC S4, 'Philosophical Anarchism', where I felt rewarded (and vindicated by the credited answers) precisely for not taking the author to be implicitly endorsing the position they are defending. To me it seems reasonable that an author can illustrate and analyze putative defenses of a theory or position, without necessarily committing themselves, in any normative way that is, to the actual theory or position. Does anyone share my concern with this passage here? Or, maybe someone has a reply as to why such a reading is justified here and not in 52? This ambiguity is bugging me because it seems like you're set up for failure in either 52 or in 82 if you employ a consistent approach.

Hello, everyone, I have been studying for the LSAT for about two weeks now, and I'm having a very, very hard time understanding weakening questions, and the highest score I've received on the drills is a 3/5. Does anyone have any suggestions on what I can do to get better at weakening questions? I have a very hard time picking out the wrong answer choices.

I read an article this morning explaining that the LG section of the LSAT is likely to change pretty drastically starting in 2022. Do we know how that will factor into scoring or if LSAC plans to release any information regarding the new style of LG section prior to a complete shift in style?

I'm planning on taking the test in February and don't feel prepared to push that date up but I also don't want to be shooting myself in the foot by studying for a style of LG that will be outdated by the time I take the test.

Hi Guys I was wondering if you guys thought it was worth it to buy the score preview for the 2nd LSAT I have taken. I did not buy it for my first LSAT

I used to be able to see the video, when doing questions why I no longer can see that? it's making me type here.

Hello everyone. I was hoping someone could help me improve LR which is my weakest section. I just recently finished a PT and got -0 in LG, -7 in RC, but -20+ combined from the 2 sections of LR. After reviewing the questions, I noticed most of the LR questions I’m getting wrong are only 4-5 star difficulty questions. The type of questions I got wrong are all over the place so the issue doesn’t seem to be exactly the type of question but rather the difficulty level that’s tripping me up. Should I create drills to only do 4-5 star difficulty questions or is there a different way to approach this? Should I be doing drills timed or untimed until I can consistently get the answers right? I’m really not sure where to go from here or how to take on these questions which are easily the biggest factor in my scores right now.

I am confused about the logic translations seen in the video explanation for a particular LR question:

LSAT PrepTest 49, Section 4, Question 16

Link: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-49-section-4-question-16/

There are two statements in this question where I don’t agree with the video explanation’s interpretation.

“Since the most realistic pieces are the most truthful”

The video explanation translates this statement as Most Real = Most Truthful. Why are the two concepts equivalent instead of existing in a conditional relationship? When I did this question, I diagrammed the relationship as Most Real → Most Truthful. We CANNOT say that “the most truthful pieces are the most realistic” given the above statement, correct?

“The most realistic pieces of art would be the best”

Again, the explanation diagrams this statement as Most Real = Best. It is my impression that from this statement, we CANNOT say “The best art is the most realistic.” Why is the equal sign used in the diagram, instead of a conditional arrow?

If someone can let me know why = signs are used rather than conditional arrows, I’d greatly appreciate the help.

My scores on my practice tests seem to rely quite a bit on the actual content of the sections. For example, I usually get between -3-4 on RC UNLESS there's a science passage. Then I score -11. Today I took a practice test. No science passage in RC, but there was on particularly difficult passage about free will. I got -11.

My test is in two weeks and I can't think of or find more strategies for RC and LR that can help me stabilize my score. I've been studying for 9 months and I don't know what to do at this point. :(

Hi, all. PM to join my January LSAT tester Discord channel! (3(/p)

I see a lot of groups form here with lots of people and undoubtedly a lot of noise. Personally, I wouldn't gain from entering a sea of people making noise on a discord group.

I'd like to form a small group of people ((10) that can support each other to develop our skills and study efficiently. I want to keep the bar high for the group, so you should have scored a 155+ on your diagnostic to qualify, or are PT-ing at 165+. Does anyone want to participate?(/p)