Hey everyone, I just took PT91 on lawhub and was wondering if anybody would be willing to help me out with a few explanations for some of the questions, specifically:

22: I chose E but not for any particular reason other than I didn't want to waste more time than needed on the question.

23: I can sort of see why AC (A) is the correct answer and if I read it more carefully I would've probably chose it but I chose AC (B) instead. I was stuck between both answers but in my head I was thinking AC (B) was correct because of how the last sentences says "cannot be caused by a simple phenomenon"

24: Was stuck between AC (C + D) ended up choosing C because of the time constraint and failed to realize that the use of 'some animals' obviously implies humans. Just wanted to confirm that C mentioning the precise location of genes is completely irrelevant to weakening the argument.

Much thanks to anyone who decides to explain these to me!

Hi! I'm looking for a list of LR questions that involve formal logic as well as a list of LR flaw questions that involve sufficient vs. necessity. Thanks!!

Was wondering what "type" of game this would fit under.

I initially tried to format it as a table as a grouping game, but on blind review I found it a lot easier to answer the questions just by treating it as a sequencing game (and marking 2 - 5 as "the same" and marking 3 as "not P"). Is there a lesson I should review here?

Admin Note: I deleted the question because it is against our Forum Rules to post LSAT questions on the Forum.

How are you studying? Going back to basics or drilling? Possibly focusing on the curve breaker questions? Feeling paralyzed and don’t know how to study at this moment!

Hi everyone!

Second time writer here (first exam was January 2021). I scheduled my November exam this morning, but for some reason the ProctorU countdown timer has added an additional hour from the actual time I picked. The correct time zone is showing on the scheduled date and time, it is just the timer that is off. From my previous experience with ProctorU in January, I am aware that once the timer runs out, you can start the check in process for your exam.

I tried to chat with a live agent about this to fix the timer but they told me to simply check back 2 days prior to the exam.

Has anyone else had a similar experience? Thank you!

Could someone please explain why C is wrong and D is correct ? I had a really hard time with this passage, and also passages 2 and 4 from this section. I thought this was a pretty hard RC section generally

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

What makes answer choice (B) wrong?

does anyone have the setup to this game?

Struggling with this one. The negation of E wrecks the argument and is what I picked, but I am having a really difficult time eliminating A. Any thoughts on how to justify getting rid of it? Thanks!

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

If this is not the hardest question on the set, I don't know which is. I had a great time trying to understand this question and why C is correct and spent an hour just scratching my head trying to figure it out. Would still love to see what everyone thinks about this question. But so far I don't see that many asking about this question so here is my take on it.

Background: Some researchers claim that people gesture less when expressing abstract instead of physical ideas

Premise: Some people perceive words in different ways: for a word that has both abstract and physical understanding, people can perceive it as either abstract or physical

Conclusion: The argument that the researchers' claim is not universal is not sufficient reason to reject it.

WTF. What are the connections between the premise and the conclusion? It seems to me that the premise is trying to say that the researchers' claim MIGHT WELL BE universal.

The argument implies that the critics would challenge the researchers' claim by doubting its univsersality. It might be something like this: the word "comprehension" represents an abstract concept, but some people apparently gesture and make a grabbing movement when they say it. This is a disproving evidence that would show that this claim is not universal, therefore it can be rejected.

Author counters by saying: hey, "comprehension" doesn't have to mean the abstract concept of understanding. It can definitely mean "catching" or "grasping." Not so fast critics, the claim of the researchers can still be universal: people just understand a word differently, and their actions regarding gesturing when expressing different words or concepts are still in accordance with what the researchers have claimed. Just because someone does gesture when expressing a word that has an abstract definition does not mean that person are thinking of the abstract definition of that word. He or she might well be expressing the physical definition instead of the abstract one. In this line of reasoning, the researchers' claim still stand and still might be universal.

AC C matches this pretty well. The author is trying to use a psychological fact (people perceive words in different definition) to reconcile a general claim (researchers' 'people gesture less with abstract concepts'") with apparently disconfirming evidence (people do NOT always gesture less when expressing abstract concepts). I find this line of reasoning the most applicable to the right answer to this question. I might be dead wrong with this, and I would love to see what others have to say about this.

Does anybody know what LG this is:

It's a grouping game with the two groups being junior and senior high. And it had sub categories had to do with French, German, and Russian.

Thanks!!

The 7Sage course made me extremely proficient at LG and that was my weakest section prior to coming here. But not so much for LR or RC. Does anyone have any advice or recommendations on how to find someone or something as good as this course is at teaching LG, but for LR and RC? Already tried Kaplan, they're no good. Tried the PowerScore Bibles, no good. Tried LSAT Trainer, ehhh, gave me a slight improvement to master the first 10-12 questions for LR but not so much beyond those.

My problem with LR is that I go through the first 10-12 questions averaging -1 or -2 on a consistent basis but have a huge drop off for the next 12-14 questions thereafter and end up going -10 through -12 EVERY SINGLE TIME.

My problem with RC is that I go -2 or -3 on 6 question passages, -3 or -4 on 7 to 8 question passages and I can only finish 3 passages total and end up guessing on one passage.

I am opening to a tutor or study buddy, or anyone who can help me. I was told by someone that the reasons I am getting the first 10-12 questions for LR is because I have a strong basic understanding of LR but not an advanced understanding of LR and therein lies my problem.

BTW, I am a twice 140 scorer and my latest LSAT score was 145, a 5 point improvement. I am trying to get to a 155-160 and I have one last LSAT attempt.

Thanks

I recently did this question and I'm still confused to how it could be choice B.

"the argument relies on the testimony of experts whose expertise is not shown to be sufficiently broad to support their general claim."

What do they mean by sufficiently broad? Sufficiently broad enough? Doesn't it seem like their argument is TOO broad? That large institutions such as universities and schools tend to get hacked therefore security needs to be a top priority?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-june-2007-section-2-question-17/

Hi all, I noticed that the questions that I typically get wrong in LR are the ones that -for the life of me- I can't understand on my first couple of reads. So I can't come up with a good pre-phrase and it makes it significantly harder for me to choose the right answer.

For example, I recently did PT 81 and the first LR section had questions that, after review, were very understandable but I just couldn't get it. I'll read each sentence, but then put together i'm thinking "what the heck is this stim even getting at?" Have any of you been in this position and are able to come up with a way to view the stim differently/ force your brain to rewire the way you approach it?

Any insight is much appreciated- TIA!

After months of studying. I am still having problem how to set some of the games up. Especially when it comes to sequencing and others. If someone out there wants to help or to study together, I would appreciate it. Thank You.

This helped me with a rc speed a lot at no detriment to comprehension that might help others! I trace the entire passage with my finger tracing my computer screen, my speed has increased and it helps me keep my speed at a consistent pace. Try it out!

Hello, 7Sagers! I seem to have a difficult time committing to memory the differences in language for Q stems in Logical Reasoning for MBT, MSS, PSA, SA, NA, and sometimes Strengthening & Principle question types. I get tripped up because the difference in the Q stem's wording is subtle, and when I don't have a solid grasp of what is being asked it makes it difficult for me to plan my attack of the answer choices. I'd also like to be confident in what type of question it is so I can frame my mind around what direction the support should flow (upwards or downwards).

For example:

I have seen ("WOTF principles, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning...") to be Q stems for both Principle and PSA questions.

Or the fact that this Strengthening question has most strongly supported it it ("The conclusion of the _____'s argument is most strongly supported if WOTF completes the argument?")

Or the differences between this MSS Q stem (""WOTF can be most reasonably inferred by the...") and this MBT Q stem ("WOTF can be properly inferred from the statements above?")

I am aware of the fact that just because the word "principle" appears in the Q stem doesn't mean it is a Principle type question, however I still struggle to discern the subtle differences between these types of questions. Does anyone have a method they use to nail down the differences?

NOTE: Which of the following = WOTF

.#help

For this one, I mapped the stimulus as

/sellout ---> poorly prepared

/SO

poorly prepared (equals to not properly prepared)

Isn't this technically what the question stem is? But how can I match this to AC C, which should be negating necessary condition. Is it permissible to contrapositive it to fit in C? Am I doing something wrong here?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-74-section-4-question-19/

My goal score is 170 which means -1/-2 in games is pretty important. I can't say I have "mastered" games through and I am nearly done with fresh games from 1-35.

The progress I've made is shocking. I used to go -12+. Now I finish every easy game FAST. Tougher games still trip me up a bit though and focus errors remain leaving me at -4 to -6 on average per section. I am aiming to sit for the test in December so I have time to remain on LG, but I am wondering what the next step is.

I could remain in fool proof mode to repeat games until I reach the next step level in improvement. Or I suppose I could begin adding in timed sections of RC/LR as well to start addressing that before PT phase. Or I could begin PTing non-fresh tests. I used up a bunch of PTs last year (without BRing so they'll probably feel fresh) in my prep and I could use those for PTing.

I was previously scheduled for the Nov. 16th at 5:30 am PST. That was the latest time slot in the morning available by the time I signed in to ProctorU. I just randomly checked ProctorU, and nearly the entire day is open with time slots if anyone wants to reschedule for an ideal test time.✌🏽

One of my biggest weaknesses at Flawed Method of Reasoning is distinguishing between a minor flaw and a major flaw in a stimulus that has multiple flaws, and the answer choices include both flaws. In the explanation video of PT19 S2 Q07, JYP was able to identify the minor flaw by hypothetically eliminating it and seeing if the conclusion is still logical. When it wasn't he identified that flaw as the minor flaw. However, can't this also be used for major flaws? If you eliminate the major flaw, the argument will still not be completely logical because the minor flaw is still there. So, to me it seems like that method does not really distinguish between minor and major flaws because applying it to both types of laws yield the argument as weak in both cases.

I'm really struggling with this and any advice is appreciated!

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-19-section-2-question-07/

When combining an "all" statement that shares its sufficient condition with the necessary condition of a "most" statement, how do you determine the sufficient/necessary order between the new terms? It's my understanding that this combination of statements would result in a valid "most" statement, but I don't understand which condition becomes sufficient and which becomes necessary.

For instance, if:

A --> B

C (most) -- A

Would the accurate conclusion be C (most) -- B, or B (most) -- C?

Hi everyone,

On the October LSAT, the duet musicians game at the end of the section destroyed me. Normally LG is my strongest section consistently getting 0 to -2 on my PTs. But, for that game I couldn't solve it and ended up randomly guessing for the last 3 questions.

Can anyone recommend challenging games similar to that one from prior PTs? Thank you.

I am an American studying abroad in the UK, and so I've just taken my exam today. I had wifi issues at my apartment and so I booked a public office space to take the exam. I was pumped and ready to take the exam. ProctorU began demanding I download software that is incompatible with my MacBook (i.e. a .exe file). I was unable to download it and thus unable to connect to a proctor and take my test. Of course I had to call customer service, and the lady ridiculed me and blamed the tech issues on me for being international. I was so flustered, anxious and frustrated. I was ultimately unable to use my own computer and had to borrow a Thinkpad from the public office. The keyboard was British and I spent so much time on my test simply trying to figure out where all of the keys were. On top of this I was too frustrated to focus for the first two sections - I have never felt so bad about a test as I do this one. The reading comp alone probably tanked my score because I kept having to re-read and hold back tears. During my 10 minute break I went to the restroom and cried. The last 2 sections went by okay, because I forced myself to pretend like I wasn't about to break down.

2 years of studying for the LSAT and website and tech issues might be the reason I don't get into the law school of my dreams.

I already filed a formal complaint to retake the exam, no guarantee that it will be granted though.

I am a wreck. I can't believe this is how test day went. 25 prep tests since June and I was averaging a 165 and sometimes higher, but because of what I went through this morning I wouldn't be surprised if I got a 150

I saw this on some LSAT prep book:

Question: for example in a mistake necessary as sufficient question,

Premise: If A then B.

Conclusion: B therefore A.

Given two answer choices

C, therefore A.

Should we choose the one with additional premise or the one with contrapositive conclusion?