Would someone please help explain the conditional logic on this one ? It shows AC A is correct.

Any tips for specifically the law articles in reading comp? All the other types of articles I have no problem on but I feel like I am completely missing everything but the main point of the law articles. Ironic with this being for a law test so I would really like to remedy!

Why isn't "FIGHK" possible? I think the answer should be C instead of E, help, I am loosing it...

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

Hi,

I am having trouble understanding which part does "a generalization with apparently disconfirming evidence" refer to in the stimulus. And that is why I did not choose C even after broke down every sentence in the stimulus.

Here is my thought process to the question:

Structurally, the stimulus has three parts:

Factually,

I quickly eliminated A because the argument is not about "the ambiguity of a word". I eliminated D and E as well because they are too far from being correct based on my familiarity of the scenarios they usually describe in the LSAT.

But then I can choose between B and C because I could not match the abstract language from either answer choice to the original argument.

For B, the author does appeal to something in the premise to support the conclusion. However, the supporting premise is more of a factual evidence rather than a universal generalization.

For C, the author is using a psychological fact, but the second part of the answer choice is really difficult for me to process. I couldn't find a reconciliation between a "generalization" and "apparently disconfirming evidence". To me, the premise perfectly supports the conclusion and I can't see why it is apparently disconfirming.

I also have a disagreement with the discussion above about the author actually agree with those scientists' claim about the correlation. The author just says that not being universal does not reject the existence of such a correlation. Correct me if I am wrong please! So instead of simply agreeing with the scientists, the author points out that even if the correlation is not "universal", the correlation still exists because people describe the correlation in various ways.

Lastly, for questions of method of reasoning, we need to identify the way the author makes her point. In this argument, the author uses an example to argue that the correlation can still exist even if it is not universal. However, C says that the author try to reconcile the generalization and the fact, which is different from my understanding of using the fact to support her conclusion, so I eliminated C and chose B eventually.

I appreciate anyone who read and answer my questions! Thank you!

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

I heard that literary devices were not tested on the LSAT and not to worry about high level advanced vocabulary.

However, I was reading a study guide that gave an explanation of author's attitude and tone by way of a literary device for which I had to look up the meaning.

I was not an English or Philosophy major. The high level vocabulary and metaphors are destroying my progress and success. I am able to handle/understand the context cues as per science and legal jargon, but it's the thousands of other words that concern me. Even for words that I thought I was familiar with, the connotations flip and throw me for a loop.

Any suggestions please......?????

Hello,

This seems like such a silly question but my last minute test anxiety is beginning to make me question everything. Are we allowed to use a wireless mouse connected to our computer on the day of the test...? 😅

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!

What makes answer choice (B) wrong?

Hi!

I for the life of me cannot correctly identify NA q's from SA q's. Does anyone have any tips/tricks to recognize between the two?

Can anyone help me work through number 20?

I think the sheer amount of language in here is what's throwing me off. But summarized as generally as possible, I think the stimulus is saying.

"Klemke thinks that the complaints are unfounded bc the complainers are biased. However, being biased would NOT prevent you from being badly treated. Therefore, the complaints are justified (not unfounded)"

So is the argument flawed because it asserts that Klemke's argument is inadequate even though it is adequate?

I'm just lost :??

**Admin Notes:

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!

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/

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.

Hi guys, how did you work on your timing for LG? I have been practicing and I can get 3 done in 25 minutes :( any tips???

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!

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 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.✌🏽

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/

Hi all,

Recently I went through 10 passages (old & recent) and totaled up all my missed questions.

My top two missed were InfAP and Inf OP overwhelmingly. Does anyone have guidance or tips for improving on these question types?

(For reference if needed, my third most missed was tied between InfAA, UAO, RecMP (lol) and RecS).

Thanks!

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?

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/

Hi, I was curious if anyone had any 7sage videos that they would suggest someone scoring mid 150's should re-watch in the couple of weeks leading to the November test. Any videos that you think explain something often forgotten or gave you a feeling of clarity would be appreciated!

Thank!