Hello guys,

I have been doing some drill sets for logical games and I have been taking my time to work through them. Sometimes I do 100% more time and I do really well. I was wondering if you guys recommend taking your time or timing yourself to see how well you can do. I feel like I take way too long and am wondering when I should progress to the timed ones.

#help

The correct answer to PrepTest 1 - Section 3 - Question 13 is C. It was marked incorrect by the Problem Set program.

For example, for PT5 S2 Q17, JY solves the question by referencing from his past game boards from past questions to eliminate a majority of the ACs.

Does everyone "save" their game boards like JY does? If so, how do you go about drawing each of them out under limited time? Do you just scribble relevant figures in similar positions without making a full board?

So far, I have been making master game boards using pen and erasing memos written in pencil before moving onto the next question.

I'm curious because I feel like using JY's technique might be a game changer for me. Thank you.

Hey guys, when it comes to set the game board do you follow "JY method" or do you make your own game board. I would love to hear you guys' outlook Thank You.

I am a mid 160s scorer with my best score being a 170. I am trying to consistently enter the 170s but my RC is always the most subject to variation it would seem. I have LR and LG down to almost mastery, but every time I do RC I vary from minus 2 to minus 10 and it is deeply frustrating at times. My question to you is how did you improve the best in RC and how did you obtain more consistent scores? I always feel like I get lost trying to find information in the passage, especially with the time constraint. Good pacing strategies also help.

No idea how to choose correct AC between D and E; can anyone explain?

Hi there! How do I just generate entire LR sections on 7sage so I can just practice single, entire LR sections at a time without going through an entire prep test? Thank you :)!

Hi! Want to clarify one of the answer choices from prep 18.

I usually don't spend too much time on analyzing specific vocabulary, but this one I need to clarify it..!

For answer choice on q10,

I still don't get 'completely' on (a) being okay.

Normally, when 'completely' appears on other types of questions such as flaw, I would regard it as 100% certainty and eliminate answer choices if there's a chance of showing 99% certainty or below.

In the stimulus, there wasn't any mention whether deterioration happens 'completely'.

Maybe it stops at some point without being completely deteriorated.

I get 'probably' means 'almost all' and this doesn't bother me at all, but 'completely',, am I too obsessed with a single word? Or is it a problem of older LSATs?

Help me!

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

Hello 7 sage, I was trying to find any notation/annotation methods and strategies for RC but unfortunately couldn't find any. Can anyone please provide me with the link to them. I saw references of methods from @Pacifico and Nicole Hopkins but couldn't find them =(

Hey everyone?!

I find myself having major issues with grouping games especially open games. Anyone willing to share some advice or care to tell me what resources has helped you the most with grouping games? It’s the main issue that is impacting my LG score.

Thanks in advance!

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

My biggest challenge is LR and Im really struggling with retaining what I've learned during the test. Any suggestions? My next test is March and I'd like to get my LR to -8 or lower.

Hi All..Quick Q. On the following sentence, using rule 3 (pick one part of the relationship, negate it, then make it the sufficient condition):

"It's not over until the fat lady sings."

O>FLS (on this part, do I think of the negating on the "O, over" because I removed the "Not" in the sentence before it?

/FLS>/O

I keep getting confused on this because of the definition of Negate, i.e. to deny, to declare not to be true. Thanks so much!

Hi everyone!

I am having a lot of trouble with my logic reasoning section. I usually only miss 1-4 questions on LR and RC really depends, but my LR is always my most missed section missing around 10-14 questions. I really don't know what to focus on. I've done the core lessons and almost all of the lessons on LR, and im just not sure how else to improve my score in this section and im starting to feel like a lost cause. Is there any recommendations or tips anyone use to improve in this section? I take the march LSAT so I just want some tips and tricks to help me before that exam.

Did anyone take look at this question, why is the answer not C. It states that price of the reserve is set high enough to yield profit. That means that the seller will make profit on the item , hence the reserve price is needed for desirable item. Any thoughts?

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

Hi everyone!

I searched for this question on the forums and had not found a topic, even though its marked as a difficult question (171 level). After review the AC is fairly obvious, but I am posting to help people that may be confused by this question, and if I say anything wrong, please correct me!

This question is a Necessary Assumption question, basically meaning that if the answer choice is not true, the argument totally falls apart.

A: Incorrect, this does not have to be true for the argument to stay together.

C Incorrect: Who cares about other arts?

D : Incorrect: It does not need to have increased for the argument to be ok, more shows with the same amount of people also works as an increase in public interest.

E: Incorrect: My AC during the test. This is incorrect because it does not matter what the intentions of the opera companies were when they established their companies. All the argument talks about is an explosion of public interest for opera, and that 45 companies founded in the last 30 years, is evidence for this. Assuming E is false, it does not destroy the argument.

Therefore the correct answer is B Which must 100% be true. If its not true, that at a minimum, 45 opera companies opened and ceased operations in the time period where the argument is saying public interest EXPLODED. Do you see the problem here? If all 45 of those founded companies went out of business in the same time period, can you really claim this to be the reason opera exploded in public interest?

Hi all,

Any tips for getting better at rule diagramming?

Hey 7Sagers,

Here's the official February 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 February 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, February 15th.

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 February LSAT!

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

Having a bit of trouble understanding why A is correct (I originally chose C). Could someone clarify? Thank you!

Stim:

Ctx: Foundation didn't want their $ to be used for weapons research so uni said none of their $ would be used for the research

P: None of foundation's $ would benefit weapons research

C: Foundation rescinded threat

ACs:

C - I didn't love this AC, but chose it because none of the others initially seemed correct to me. Descriptively, it is accurate in that the foundation overlooked this possibility that the uni was lying, but I mean it's a short argument, I'm sure they could've overlooked several things.

I wonder if this C almost attacks the premise in a way - Like, okay sure what if the uni was lying? Then the foundation's grant money would DIRECTLY benefit weapons research. Is this the right way of thinking about it?

A - I googled around and saw some explanations for why A was correct, but my struggle is that the crux of why this AC is correct is that it hinges on the nuance of direct vs indirect benefit. I didn't even think about indirect benefit until reading explanations for this AC, but wondering if that's a common theme of "direct" vs "indirect" when it comes to certain flaw questions?

#help

I originally picked C but think I get why C is right - can someone validate my thinking?

Stim:

-Context basically (even though it came from treasure hunter): maritime law says that when people risk their lives to save a ship in peril, they can keep whatever they want.

-Treasure hunter: For ships that have basically been wrecked for a long time, treasure hunters get to keep cargo since they risk their lives to save the ships from oblivion

-Archaeologist: No, you don't get to keep cargo since these shipwrecks are stable. They're not in danger from anything (aka not in peril) - the only annoying thing they have to deal with are greedy treasure hunters.

ACs:

C - Originally I thought that the archaeologist was arguing that the hunters weren't actually being heroic or risking their lives (the "shipwrecks have stabilized over the centuries they have lain underwater" somehow made me think that she was arguing that the waters around the ship were still aka hunters were not risking their lives.) But I guess my confusion was it seemed that she was arguing that the ship wasn't in peril and therefore the hunters weren't even risking their lives?

The main "devils advocate" to that statement would be that maybe the hunters ARE risking their lives but the they're not saving the ship from oblivion.

D - Archaeologist seems to agree with this statement that the maritime law can apply here. She's just saying that the ship is literally not in disarray at all and have nothing to save.

B - Speaks to the fact that "the only danger [the ships] are in" is from "greedy treasure hunters."

#help

Hi everyone! I am a little confused on this question, specifically on Answer Choice E.

Because it is a Pattern MOR Q, I broke down the logic in the stimulus too:

B -> D or J

D or J m-> QP

B probably QP

I represented the conclusion with probably because I believe it is important, as the question does not fully claim B must be QP.

Working through the wrong answers:

A: Incorrect, talks about Mercedes Identifying most trees, but that does not really fit with the structure we need

B: Incorrect, assumption required between creaking gate and hearing somebody break into house.

C: Incorrect, similar to our argument, but does not include most, and includes a negation our argument does not have

D : Correct: M -> L or K m-> MD Conclusion: M probably MD. Direct mimic of Q Argument

E: This is the one I am struggling with why its incorrect.

Laying out the logic for this one I have:

T -> D or S

D or S m-> CS

T probably CS

I know I am missing something, but all I see here is an argument that also mimics the Qs argument. Maybe because the conclusion comes first?

Thanks for the help!

I couldn't find which pt it was, plz help me review it

It was a sequencing game, and it was about a store with consecutive aisles from 1-9 and finding the order of them.

Help me..!!

Hi all,

I picked the right answer but my prediction of the main point was quite different from the language of the credited choice.

My prediction: the origin of the scholars' nonpoetic emphasis was due to Milman Parry.

When I read the first paragraph, my attention was caught by this sentence "Something wsa driving scholars away from the actual work to peripheral issues" (Lines 14-15).

Could someone explain why the reason/origin of the nonpoetic emphasis is deemed as not a part in the main point?

Thanks!

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-25-section-1-passage-2-questions/

So I've noticed that the introduction of the reading comprehension portion of the course does a pretty good job of preparing you for scientific readings. They discuss Phenomena, Hypotheses, readjusting a hypothesis following the observation of a new set of phenomena that rests outside the previously discussed hypothesis, etc. etc. The whole approach allows me to follow the chronological order of the scientific process discussed in the passages with confidence.

Do similar discussions exist for the other passage types like Law and Humanities? I am teasing out certain aspects on my own, like arguments and counterarguments often being in the law passages. But it's less direct than with the science passages. Any tips would be super appreciated!

Hi guys,

I'm having a hard time being able to identify game types and knowing what game board setup to use. I recently just started studying for the logic game section and i'm guessing maybe the only way to learn this is it with practice/experience BUT, I'd like to know if anyone else had trouble with this as well and if any particular tips helped with identifying the game type and board setup.

I’m looking for a RC tutor who can help me drastically improve my RC score and who has helped others go from getting 8-10 questions correct to 20+ correct. Someone who is great at breaking down why a question is correct and why other answers are incorrect. I know there’s a a specific way to attack questions types on RC but I haven’t figured it out. Reading for structure isn’t a problem for me. I understand grabbing the main point, author viewpoint, and whether the author disagrees/agrees with a certain point. My main problem is I tend to attack questions all the same in RC and just like LR, each question cannot and shouldn’t be attacked the same way and requires different ways of attack. Message me if you’re able to help.