So, I just finished the MC/MSS section of the program. It seems I am still struggling with it here and there. With it being complete, I am reviewing notes trying to figure out how to do it faster and better, but obviously I have already been exposed to the questions in the course. Outside of the actual practice tests, is there another way I can study those sections independent of the whole test to hopefully gain a mastery of it?

If I take the LSAT in August 2022, will I still be able to apply for law school so that I can begin in Fall 2023?

For this question, I did not choose A because I created a world where F is not 1 lower than S and I don't understand what I'm getting wrong, I doubled checked the rules.

The world is: F K J S M G H

lol I know I did not crack the lsat, #help fr

Thanks :)

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-30-section-1-game-4/

Hello,

I often find myself eliminating three answer choices, resulting in two remaining choices that I waste undue amounts of time deciding between. Does anyone have any advice on a formulaic way of selecting an answer choice with the highest chance of accuracy while minimizing the amount of time lost? Thank you!

I don't understand how E is the answer. I can we say that it must true that some of his friends must be lying? Is it cause we know that John isn't unique from them and knows no person who smoked 40 cigarettes a day for the past 40 years

and yet who is really fit and well?

I've noticed lately that my accuracy on the arts RC passages (art movements, literature, architecture, etc.) tends to be lower than my accuracy on all the other types. My best explanation for this is that I simply have a harder time absorbing and comprehending the information presented in these passages due to having had little exposure to the subject matter (I'm majoring in math and philosophy). It's taking too much brains-space to try and read for structure as well as keeping details in mind for those questions that ask for specifics (I scan the questions before reading the passage). I think reading some literature similar to those arts passages might help with this problem by giving me more exposure. Does anyone have recommendations as to where I could start to look?

Taking the LSAT in August btw

I am having a hard time understanding the rationale behind the correct answer choice being 'B' and why it wouldn't be choice 'D'

Hi. I took April LSAT then scored 158 from the test (I am planning to cancel this score since I purchased the LSAT score preview). It is not a horrible result as a first-time test taker, but disappointing for me b/c I am aiming the score around 165 as my target.

I know I am looking forward to substantial rise, but I wish to ask: do you think is it possible for me to get 165 in just three weeks?

My average PT score is around 160 - 165, depending on questions, conditions..etc. In usual, it stays around 160-162 and reach up to 165 on a lucky day.

Now I am preparing for June LSAT, which is only three weeks away from now (I will take the test in South Korea btw), and wish to ask for some advices about my plan and feasibility of getting this target score.

I am not really worrying about LG since I have gotten -0, -1, or -2 in most (almost all) recent attempts. I think what should I do is taking a section drill in every day or two then getting more comfortable with this section.

My LR scores are really inconsistent. Sometimes I get -3, sometimes it drops down to -9. I've considered the reason why. For now, I suppose one reason lies on the moment when I fall into a loophole. When I cannot understand points of some questions, I often get to think too deeply then feel some obviously wrong answer choices look correct (I regret a lot on this type of questions when I review). Therefore, I am re-reading Powerscore, LSAT trainer, Notes I've taken from 7Sage courses, and wrong questions to specify a proper thinking strategy I should hold during a test thus I can return to this task whenever I try to fall into a loophole. I am also taking a section drill in every two days to clarify whether this is working or not.

RC is my weakest section. I usually get -7 and get almost half wrong when I completely screwed it up (not really often). I've re-read a LSAT trainer to identify the reason why, as I've done in LR, then found out the fact that I often focus on a tree instead of a forest. When I reach to questions about a specific part of passage, I focus too much on the part they specified then neglect/forget a general purpose or main points of the work. This made me missing a whole point during the test then getting wrong on both general and specific questions. Therefore, to overcome this bad habit, I am writing down a purpose of each passage whenever I review the passages I've done and taking a section drill every day to adapt myself into a more general perspective. + I'm especially struggling with a comparative passage because I am really, REALLY bad at it. I often miss the relationship between two passages and distort a point of the Passage A while reading the Passage B. Thus, if you have any specific tip on solving a comparative passage's questions, I am happy to hear that.

I am planning to take a full PT once or twice per week (may take 3 PTs in a last week or two), depending on the amount of time for review. In between each PT, I will take two section drills almost every day while I review. (LG, RC for day 1, LR, RC for day 2...) I planned like this because I think what should I do right now is clarifying the BEST thinking strategy for me for each section, not just mechanically taking PTs over and over again. I believe this may bring my score up substantially.

How do you think about the plans above? Well, even I am not really optimistic on getting the score I am aiming for, but nevertheless, I wish to do my best under the current circumstance. Therefore, I am happy to hear any comment/advice. If you have any tip on question solving (especially on RC and LR), it would be grateful if you can share.

I am signed up to take the June LSAT and I am behind on my course. I am currently 77% of the way through the CC meaning that I have 50 hours left to finish it. I have not done any PT's since my diagnostic. I have about a month until my test. Do I push through the 50 hours of CC or do I jump into PT's and do that for the next month?

The gap is the owners has right to destory the art works from the ethical point of view even if the owner possess it legally. The premise is the possess it legally , and destory ethically is the core.

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q#(P#) - [brief description of stimulus]"

Can anyone explain this question for me? #help

Admin note: edited title

Can someone explain to me how Japan is a “model” if they are in a shortage. I’ve been trying to understand this for the past 6hrs

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!

Well i speedran through the cc and the variety in the number of questions was initially pretty difficult for me to properly adjust to, given that the methods listed in the cc are somewhat distinct from each other. I tried a section and struggled. However, now that I consciously take note of the main point, premise, and maybe some implied basis for support, the questions just seem to be going right for me. I'm still not where I want to be, but it's a start. Has anyone else been where I am? If so, has this method of just having an insane focus on the mp, premise, and support been of greater use to you than using conditional logic, especially in questions where it gets particularly tricky to use cl?

Hello 7Sagers,

Anyone have an alternate way from JY's of conceptualizing the game board set up on this one?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-24-section-4-game-3/

Happy studying!

This is the question I found in PT 19 section 1, third game.

If F is assigned to b2, G is assigned to b2.

If V is assigned to b1, W is assigned to b2.

Does it mean that if F is in b1, G can be b2 or b1?

Does it mean that V is in b2, W can be in b1 or b2?

I follow the logic F b2 -> G b2, but not the opposite direction, so G can be in any position when F is in b1.

I hope it is correct.

Can two arguments that are contrapositives of one another be considered parallel in a parallel argument question? #help

Why is the correct answer D? As opposed to E, I can understand that no where in the text does it show that in order for a consumer to purchase the merchandise, they must have the ability to verify any and all claims regarding it. Yet, for choice D, I am having a hard time understanding why there would be a contradiction made.

Hello everyone, I am planning on taking the June 2022 LSAT… I have been studying for a while… I am having a hard time getting my practice test scores to where I really need them to be and really dont know where to start in diagnosing where I am going wrong… I am feeling a little overwhelmed. Any guidance would be appreciated :)

Does this mean that the sufficient alone is enough for the conclusion to be drawn and once the conclusion can be drawn, the necessary is a must?

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

Hi I just did a logic game in PT9 (S3 G3). I was wondering if you know of another logic game in the practice question bank that is similar to PT9 S3 G3? I would like to practice a similar game type under a different scenario.

Anyone have advice on determining when a flaw question has jumped from a correlation to a cause and effect argument? Each flaw question I do with correlation and causation in the mix, I never can identify when the AC is 'infers cause from mere correlation'. Any help is appreciated! :)

What is the difference, can someone please enlighten me.

I’m having a really difficult time with LR. Is there an approach that works for you when taking the test under timed conditions? For instance, MBT means do this; MSS means look for this. Sort of a guide or plan of action for each type of question.

Hi everyone, I've been rolling around in this question for a very long time and still have some fundamental questions so would be great if someone can confirm my thinking/help answer those questions. Thanks in advance!

Stimulus breakdown:

P: The robots that are being designed are the ones that can be maintained with the least expensive, least skilled human labor possible

C: So robots won't eliminate demeaning work, they're just gonna basically substitute one "demeaning job" for another

In more human terms, the argument is saying that if there are 100 people assembling car parts in a factory (assuming that we call that a demeaning job), then the addition of robots will basically take those 100 jobs and turn it into 100 jobs of monitoring the robots (which they also assume is a demeaning job).

My question: It seems like this question makes us assume that "hazardous and demeaning work" is the same as "least expensive, least skilled human labor." Is this a flaw or is this something we could be allowed to assume?

Answer Choices:

A) Using 2-step test, this does happen in that he ignores that some jobs might be eliminated if the factories don't use robots. But this is not the flaw because even if he did consider that, it doesn't hit on the conclusion that robots are really just substituting and not reducing the net # of demeaning jobs

B) Not descriptively accurate, so fails step 1

C) Descriptively accurate - he doesn't specify what the engineers think but fails step 2 because that's not an issue. Even if he hits on the sentiments of the engineer, it doesn't weaken his argument that the robots are just subbing demeaning jobs and not even decreasing the net #

D) Not descriptively accurate - there's not any fear that's happening here

E) Descriptively accurate and if he did acknowledge that it's possible that 1 robot could replace the 100 shitty jobs in the care factory with just 1, then his conclusion that "robots will not eliminate demeaning work" no longer holds.

My question here is though, is it okay that a weakening answer basically completely destroys the argument? I know we can't attack the premise but not sure where that stands for the conclusion/broader argument.

#help

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