Discussions

LSAT

New post

309 posts in the last 30 days

Main point questions are pretty much the only questions I really struggle with on RC, and can be really frustrating and time consuming since they seem pretty subjective. Does anyone have a trick to deal with these questions specifically? Thanks

1

Started off with a -7 reading comp on my diagnostic and now I'm down to the 0 to (-2) on recent PTs with very little variability based on the section's difficulty. Thought I'd share what works for me.

The RC section is famously the least 'learnable' LSAT section, especially relative to the LG section. Even being good at RC, being thrown into a section feels a lot more shaky then starting a new never before encountered LG section. There is a feeling in LG that you have a reliable and consistent procedure that you can use to get the right answers, and the absence of a similarly clearly defined and reliable procedure for RC is easily felt and has shaken my confidence in attacking a RC section before.

I present for your consideration the VIQW (Vick-double-"u") method.

Visualize

Interest

Question

Write

This was largely adapted from the method outlined in the course sections on RC, with some additions of my own.

Visualizing helps occupy the mind while reading in a way that helps retain attention and focus on written details. Visualize here could be replaced with something like Imagination + Context. For example if I'm reading the passage discussing the merits of IP law protections for software to stop people stealing video game code I might pause briefly to imagine a scenario in my mind where I download a game that is clearly just a reskinned version of Minecraft with the same codebase directly ripped from it. Or in a passage on prescriptivist vs descriptivist grammarians I might play a little imaginative game in the background where I try to picture in my head what I think a prescriptivist would look like versus a descriptivist based on details in the passage. Maybe I'm crazy for this one, but this strategy really helps keep my mind engaged in the background in a way that creates additional interest in the material, and therefore helps with recall and drawing connections between different details in the text.

Interest is in my opinion, key to RC success. If you are not in the top 1% of intellectual curiosity and not innately gifted at RC, then your success in this section will depend on you becoming a master salesperson. I strongly believe that if you can answer this question "Why do I want to know about what this passage is speaking on?" in the affirmative honestly, this can make a huge difference. If you accept the proposition that you don't care what these passages say for the most part, that they suck and you just have to grin and bear it until you can start answering questions and be done with this section, you are 100% shooting yourself in the foot. You need to think about the things you think are worth considering and learning about, then figure out a way to quickly draw a connection between the passage and your interests and be able to give a one-two sentence answer for why what this passage has to say matters and is worth paying attention to--other than to just get you a good score.

The third pillar is Questioning. Ideally ask questions as you are going through the text. Did the author just make a claim--why are they making it--is it something they are trying to persuade us of, or is it being presented as a generally accepted fact that they are using to support some other claim they have made. At the very least each paragraph you should pause and ask yourself: "what is a question that is answered or attempted to be answered in this paragraph?" This will help contextualize the text, help you with main point and other question types, as well as with recall.

The last pillar is something I learned about LG recently which led me to go from -6 to -9 range to a consistent 0 to -3 range. The point of the methods you use in LG, such as rule translation and diagramming is to allow you to distribute the cognitive load of thinking through LG problems. The LG games method and procedure is actually a manually operated analog computer that you use to reduce the amount of computations you have to make in your head at the same time, and to reduce the amount of information you store in your head at the same time. Think of it like this--if your RAM maxes out your computer, its CPU slows down--in other words when its short term memory is full is becomes slower at computing information, slowing down your performance. What you write down in an LG game reduces the amount of information you need to have concurrently and readily accessible in your short term memory at any given moment, and gives you a way to solve for some problems through writing out scenarios on gameboards--reducing the amount of stress on your internal mental processing and improving the quality of what you are computing in your head.

So long story short, I think this same logic can apply to RC. So I recommend getting scrap paper and writing jot notes per paragraph. Every time you read a line and it interests you write out a short jot note (no more than 5 words) that will remind you of that thought when you look at it again in a minute. Likewise when you notice a claim that seems like a conclusion of an argument the author is making, or a claim that answers some question raised earlier in the passage make a short jot. Writing helps improve recall, that's a given. But my shot in the dark is that this actually helps you think through the material as you read it as well.

Sorry for the wall of text, just wanted to write a post that would have helped me if I saw it a few months back. Best of luck to everyone, especially fellow January LSAT writers! We can do this :)

2

I got stuck on this question between answer A and answer E. I went with A knowing that the 'every' in the answer would most likely be wrong. I almost selected E because it says 'they (men) fell short in all other categories' meaning men would have fallen short of fruits and vegetables like answer E says.

Can anyone give an example of how they solved this question so I can clear the smoke a little more in my thinking?

#help

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

0

A corporation is planning separate travel itineraries for two representatives, Frank and Gloria...

Please #help

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format "PT#.S#.Q# (G#) - brief description of question." I also removed the Question and Answer Choices as it is against our Forum Rules to post full LSAT questions on the forum.

Also, here is the official explanation:

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-93-section-4-game-1/

0

Hi! I really struggled with timing on LSAT prep test 93 Logic Game Three because of the amount of conditional statements and not knowing where to even start with inferences beyond contrapositives. Any suggestions with where to find resources on the best way to set up game three / similar games? There is not a video explanation up on 7Sage yet. Thanks!

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

https://classic.7sage.com/event/pt93-lr-review-j-y-ping-4/

0

I ended up changing my answer from C to A during blind review, but cannot figure out why C is wrong.

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

0

Wouldn't the inability to detect methane in the atmosphere (C) be the answer? The right answer (B) says that not all living beings have the ability to produce methane, but couldn't "not all" still mean that 99.9% of living beings could (and hence NOT weaken the argument)

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

0

The last 3 PTs I’ve done I’ve scored exactly -9 on all three tests. I don’t ever seem to do worse as in -10+ but at most I’ll come down to -7 but usually it’s -8/9. I have no idea what to do anymore to improve this section I feel like it’s holding me back so much. If anyone has any tips or just any advice on something I could try I’d be very thankful. Really frustrated at the moment with this consistently mediocre performance.

0

Hey guys,

Sorry if this seems a bit naive but I'm hoping there's a bit of 'secret sauce' to help me get over this plateau I've hit.

I'm taking the January LSAT and have been batting around -4 to -6 on the logic games (diagnostic was -14 score 155) and I'm looking to make the final push to try and consistently keep it to -0. When I do sections untimed I'm able to get 100% without breaking too much of a sweat but I'm over time more often than not. I haven't left questions unanswered but I have noticed that roughly 50% of the time I do have a time crunch when answering the final two questions.

For the games themselves I do get a useful and inference rich diagram complete but I do notice that sometimes I get tripped up on rules and that adds a bit of time to completing the diagram (usually no more than 3 minutes).

I've moved over here from Khan Academy. I'm gunning for 170+ but the last 5 practice tests I've taken have averaged around 164 with my lowest at 162 and highest currently sitting at 167. My LR scores have quite a bit of variance from -2 to -7 and my RC scores fluctuate from -5 to -3.

I'm drilling the specific question types I'm getting wrong on LR hoping to get the last bits to 'click' and hopefully keep that to -3 consistently. What's left is logic games which from my understanding have the highest ROI for the effort invested.

Any advice/feedback is appreciated!

7

When I do a game in a PT or a drill, I do it timed first, then again during BR, and if after BR I still am not at a -0, I take a few hours or a day and repeat the entire game untimed. If I can figure it out on my own (using my own inferences and my own gameboards), then I'll just go foolproof the game using my own strategies, rather than watching JY's explanation video. Am I wrong to be doing that? I'm wondering if this is preventing me from getting to a -0 as quickly. I have improved on my own though (averaging at about a -6), but I was just wondering if I'd be improving more and faster if I were to just always follow every single step that JY takes in his explanation videos?

0

Hi everyone! I need some advice/hacks on identifying necessary assumptions for weakening and strengthening questions. I have been stuck on these two sections for a few weeks now. I got so frustrated that I had to go to a different section because they have been holding up my progress. I am really struggling to come up with the assumptions myself. It's like when I ask myself what is the assumption, my brain freezes. Is there something that you've done to help make it click for you? Or could someone explain it to me like I'm 5? haha

#help

1

Hello,

I figured I should write this to get a feel for what I'm doing wrong. I have been taking practice sections for LR, and have been stuck in the -8 to -11 range. Terrible, I know. I have been blind reviewing and I will maybe see the light on some of them, but others I stick with the answer I chose. I feel like I can't make certain connections with the arguments I'm seeing and I'm not entirely sure how to fix it.

After the explanation videos I have a clearer understanding of the argument and why the correct answer is correct, but I do another practice section and the same thing happens. I have been missing the questions that are at the 158 curve and above.

Is there something different I can be doing?

Thanks for any advice.

0

Anyone have any tricky LR problems involving conditional logic that they've encountered and could share? Either individual problems or a list, if you by some incredible stroke of good fortune, you should have one, would be great.

Also, if anyone is interested in syncing up to work on some tougher conditional logic problems please reach out.

0

Hi 7Sagers,

I was hoping to get some help with J.Y's reasoning in one of the explanations videos. According to J.Y., the statement "as many people consume caffeine as consume any one of the other addictive psychoactive substances" means that the number of people who consume caffeine is equal to or greater than the number of people who consume other addictive psychoactive substances. I just don't see how that makes sense. For me, it would make sense to say that:

"the number of people who consume caffeine **is equal to ** the number of people who consume other addictive psychoactive substances.

Any thoughts? Or other ways to conceptualize this statement?

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

0

Can someone please explain to me what the difference is between AC C and D? I'm probably not mapping it out correctly, but C and D seem to have the same pattern of reasoning as the question stem. I chose D the first time but C when I did blind review and that makes me nervous.

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

0

Can someone explain why AC C is right and E is wrong.

Option C states that "the proportion of arrests to crimes committed was not significantly higher for criminals under intensive supervision than for those under routine supervision." This statement is not an assumption on which the argument relies. Instead, it is a piece of evidence presented in the argument to support the conclusion that intensive supervision is no more effective than routine supervision in preventing criminals from committing additional crimes. The argument states that the percentage of released criminals arrested while under supervision is the same for intensive supervision as for routine supervision, and cites the fact that the proportion of arrests to crimes committed was not significantly higher for criminals under intensive supervision as evidence for this claim. However, this statement does not itself form the basis for the argument's conclusion.

Option E is an assumption on which the argument relies. The argument states that the percentage of released criminals arrested while under supervision is the same for intensive supervision as for routine supervision, and concludes that intensive supervision is no more effective than routine supervision in preventing criminals from committing additional crimes. However, this conclusion relies on the assumption that the number of criminals put under routine supervision was not significantly greater than the number of criminals put under intensive supervision. If the number of criminals put under routine supervision was significantly greater, it could be that the percentage of released criminals arrested while under supervision is the same simply because there are more criminals under routine supervision. In that case, it would not be accurate to conclude that intensive supervision is no more effective than routine supervision

0

Confirm action

Are you sure?