Discussions

LSAT

New post

206 posts in the last 30 days

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?

0

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?

0

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:

  • both H and M before L

  • L before H and M

    • 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)?

    0

    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!

    0

    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

    0

    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.

    2

    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!

    1

    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/

    0

    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?

    3

    I am about to fool proof all games from PTs 1-35. Is it recommended to fool proof by game type? Meaning is it better to do, say, all of the in/out games from 1-35, then turn to other game types? Or is it recommended to go straight through the games in PTs 1-35 and, therefore, be exposed to many different game types in a random order?

    0

    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?

    0

    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?

    0

    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.

    0

    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"

    0

    I have heard that the June LSAT is significantly harder.. is that true? I have heard it from a few people and I am nervous. Also I want to apply for Fall 2022, and it says the deadline is 06/30/22... I got a 136 on the first LSAT (I did not study at all) and I am wondering if law schools will consider my second score if I get it after I apply to law school.

    0

    Confirm action

    Are you sure?