Hi Everyone,

I was wondering if it's still worth it to redo the miscellaneous games in the logic game section? I'm not sure if they still test it much.

Hey all. I recently completed practice test 91 on LawHub and an argument part type question's AC has me a little confused. I don't want to give spoilers away for the question... so not going to provide too much detail.

But one of the AC's is "It points up by example a contrast from which the conclusion is drawn."

Specifically "it points up" - I've never seen this used before in my life. Have you?

Is it a typo where they meant to say "it points out"?

Thank you and keep up the good work everyone!

Hello Everybody,

I am currently working my way through the Logic Games section. I've taken multiple symbolic logic courses in University and learned all about logical operators, such as ampersand (conjunctions), wedge (disjunction), horseshoe/arrow (conditional) and triple bar (biconditional).

I keep trying to translate the given sentences with the common logical operators used in symbolic logic, but the 7Sage program seems to only use conditionals to translate every sentence...

One example that stood out to me is: "Neither ... nor". In symbolic logic that normally translates to either (~A & ~B ) or into ~(A v B ), according to the DeMorgan's laws. However, 7Sage suggests the translation: A -> ~B C -> ~B

Can someone explain to why we aren't using the other logical operators? It is distinctly possible that I am missing something or misunderstood something, so I would appreciate any help!

Johanna

Hi all,

I'm looking for someone or a mini-group of folks to full proof LG with me.

I take my test in November, but I am going to do some LG full proofing before then, and I think it would be a good idea not to go it alone. SO what I was thinking is having someone to help with accountability and staying on track. We could email each other at the beginning of the week and commit to full-proofing say Games 1-10 this week, and then check in at the end of the week to make sure we did. We'd repeat this cycle until we feel like we've reached our goal/are prepared to take the test.

Anyone up for this. I find the repetition of full proofing difficult, but it would be easier knowing someone is doing the same thing as me. Let me know if you're interested!

Hi everyone! Happy Friday. On my last few practice tests I have gotten between -1 to -3 on my first LR section and then, if LR shows up a second time, my score plummets to -7/-8 on the second LR. How is this possible? Does anyone have any tips to avoid a big point drop-off between the first and second LR if it were to show up twice on test day? If it makes a difference, these tests were in the 60's. Thanks :)

Hello! While taking PT's I started creating a question stem chart. I would always get so nervous to get a question incorrect, due to being unsure what "type of question" it was referring to... I am an overthinker lol. I don't know about anyone else, but drilling questions is cool and all buttttttttttt I got soooo use to KNOWING what question I was doing when drilling the same type of question over and over. Hope this helps! I don't know if it shows every question type... I've been taking the most recent PT's so I've been building it as I go

What's your least favorite question type? What approach do you take? What's your favorite?

Mine is main conclusion (3(/p)

However, my least favorite is PSA Vs. SA... Anyone care to explain these two to me :) What approach do you use to answer the question?

If I made an error, please tell me.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/105zPPw0Wpllf9bc3T9VyNAxNjiQKHDV-urFsMkTy_CI/edit

I'm disagreeing with how JY did this because we can't use common sense in MBT nor make up assumptions because we think it makes sense to us. MSS is fine because it's always a 95% certainty and 5% wiggle room for some common sense.

That is invalid because what is a valid argument and what is a sound argument are two different things. In MBT we are focusing if it is valid not if it is sound but JY isn't doing that

His argument goes in the lawgic

Standard committee ---> 6 PM

General assembly ----> 7 pm

6 isn't 7

so 6 ----> /7

Which he gets

SQ ----> 6 ---> /7 ----> /General assembly

The problem is that is not a valid argument. We can't negate assumptions since we are removing alot of presumptions.

I KNOW that 6 isn't 7, but thats not the controversy. The controversy is aligning an assumption against another assumption through negation, which that's not a valid argument.

For all we know in sound arguments, 6 is 7, or 6 does not necessarily contradict 7 (or vice versa)

Why not? Because what if it lasts 5 minutes the assembly. What if the coordinators are so stupid that they do it at the same time. Not common sense but still valid.

Parallel flaw example:

Juan likes tacos

Jake likes cars

Tacos aren’t cars

Therefore Juan —> /Jake

=====================

The lawgic

Juan –> tacos

Jake —> Cars

tacos—-> /cars

Therefore Juan —> Jake

Explanation Video: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-83-section-1-question-18/

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

Hey Everyone,

As you have probably seen from the title, I am struggling HORRIBLY with the reading comp section, I always get about -15 wrong, even before I used 7Sage I never did this bad. I do well on all other sections, but can't seem to get any improvements on this on in particular.

Has there been any tips or tricks that have helped you overcome RC? I am taking the October LSAT next week and am worried that this section will ruin my score. I am losing hope for this section and filled with anxiety that I won't improve.

Any suggestions will be amazing, thank you :)

OK, HEAR ME OUT. Something that helped me go from -7/9 to -4 on RC is, and some might be against this but we get desperate sometimes, actually skipping a passage all together, specifically the comparative passage. NOW BEFORE YOU HATE ME FOR THIS, JUST SEE WHAT I HAVE TO SHARE.

I always struggled with timing on RC, and when I read faster, my accuracy went down. So what my tutor taught me is as you go through the section, read the passages slowly, take your time really understanding what the passage is saying, and don't move on to the questions until you have a good understanding. Then, do the questions as normal. When you get to the comparative passage, pick a letter and answer that letter for all the questions. Don't even read the passage or questions, just fill in the letter and move on. Go back to in-depth reading and answering for the rest of the passages.

What you might find is because you skipped a passage, you'll have about 3-6 minutes left over to go back and review the skipped comparative passage (this will fluctuate as you get more confident with RC). When you go back to the comparative, don't read the passage, but skim over the questions and see which you can answer without actually reading the whole passage. These will be questions like ones that only deal with passage A/B, ones that reference a specific area of passage A/B, or structure questions that you might be able to point out. Look at the answer you selected while skipping and see if the answer makes sense. If it doesn't, change it to one that does make more sense or simply a different one.

Normally, with selecting the same letter for all of a passage's questions, at least one is going to be right. After that, your review with your extra time should help you get one or two more right. Now, the key to this strategy is that you must work on getting all of the questions right on the other passages that you took your time on. This might sound scary, but you might surprise yourself on how much you can understand and answer when you give yourself the time. If you get all the other passage problems correct, and you get at least one right with your skipping due to all of them being the same letter, you will automatically go down to -6/7 depending on how many questions the comparative passage has. Add the questions that you might get right from your second quick review of the comparative and you can bring that down to -4/5.

I HATED RC and I never thought I could conquer it, but this strategy has allowed me to be so comfortable with it because I can slow read and really understand the passages which makes the questions a lot easier, while still using analytical skills, that are easier to master than speed reading, to squeeze out those extra points. If anyone has any questions, please reach out to me. I'd love to help a fellow RC strugglers :)

I took PT 91 on LawHub and my score dropped 4 points from what I have been scoring on the past 10 tests. Specifically my score in reading comp suffered greatly. Does anyone know why this might be the case? This scares me since I am taking the October test on the 14th.

The debate comes down to B and C.

For B, I eliminated basing on the "average population." remember, the question stem never actually mentions what is true about the average population. We only know that if 100 ppl never smoked crack, only 5 would get falsely tested positive. but in 100 crackhead, 99 would get tested positive. Do we know the average number of crackhead among society? No. That would be something like in American society, there are on average 8 crackheads among 100 people. We don't have this information. So we cannot say that the flaw is applying the stats of average member to every member of the society, since there is no mentioning of what is the average.

C catches the flaw. My first reaction was that wait a minute, if the vast majority who got positive are confirmed crackheads, what if everyone doesn't smoke crack in this perfect society? Then according to the stem, 5 in every 100 ppl who never smoked crack will get tested positive, then you have the vast majority who got tested positives are not crackheads: they all got falsely tested positive and never smoked before. Well let's increase that to let's say there are an average of 7 crackheads among 100 people. Well still, the amount of crackheads are still not the vast majority of those tested positive. From this reasoning, we then know that we need to know how much people are actually crackhead in among the general population, then we can know whether the VAST MAJORITY of the people who test positive are crackheads. Let's say we are in NYC, and we have about 60 out of 100 on average are crackheads (maybe or maybe not exaggerated). Then the argument might actually make sense according to the 100 tested 99 positive stat. Without the average proportion of crackheads, we cant draw the conclusion about how many will get accurately tested positive in a society.

I want to begin studying for RC & was wondering if you guys thought 7sage's RC lessons were very beneficial or if I should use the Powerscore RC book that I have. RC is my worst section, so if anyone could provide me with their opinions on 7sage's RC material for the Course Curriculum that would be great. Thank you!

After reading the stimulus, I was wondering why the overall number of collisions didn't decline even after using headlights was made mandatory and I thought E explained the discrepancy. If it is true that the jurisdictions that have mandatory headlight laws have naturally low visibility, wouldn't that explain why the overall number of collisions didn't decrease?

As for answer choice C, is it suggesting that the reason the collision rate is lower for drivers that use headlights is not because of the headlights but because they are more careful drivers? I read LSAC's official explanation and am still confused about these two choices.

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

Anyone have any suggestions to break a plateau in LR? Any tips would be greatly appreciated.

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"

I don't feel too great about my understanding of each LR question type. Does anyone have any tips or other source of material that helped everything truly click for them? LG has been great through 7sage but it's challenging for me to stay locked in and focused during the videos for LR as he tends to either talk very fast, jumps from one thing to another, or makes a mistake and corrects himself. it all just makes the flow of retaining the information more challenging for me.

Does anyone know why answer choice A is incorrect?

I just feel like I'm at a wall with LGs, I've reviewed all the material, memorized the game types/boards, but whenever I do a timed section I always seem so miss an extra 3 or 4 questions and end up at -6 or -7 instead of -2 or -3, which is what I'm usually at when I take my time. A lot of my mistakes are just misreading part of the stimulus and then making a faulty assumption off of it. Any tips for keeping a level head?

Hey everyone lately I have been scoring -2 on LR ,-1 LG and -7 on RC. Does anyone have tips I could use to help improve my RC score before the October test? I've found difficulty with the Authors Attitude and Analogy questions.

Hi everyone,

So I have been studying since May of 2020 (yikes), and originally I scored a 132 on my diagnostic and now scoring a 166-167, but I am continuing to get the SAME types of questions wrong in LR; Strengthening and Flaw.

Any tips on how to successfully attack these questions?

I have a tutor but there's only so much one person can do to help.

Also, i have dyslexia, so i tend to read things backwards, so timing becomes an issue with these question types.

I am taking the November LSAT and I can't seem to get my score up on Reading Comprehension. I have improved on everything else but for some reason, Reading Comprehension is getting to me (probably the boring passages) any tips?

What is the lowest overall score I can get on the test if I get -0 or -1 on LG? Taking Oct LSAT next weekend and want to know if I can get my score to be (near)perfect on LG, what can I expect my overall score to be on the test itself?

Hi I have a quick question on Q12, the disagreement question. I understand that passage A supports the idea that public funding can encourage the establishment of social capital. But I am not clear why B disagrees with it.. Is it because public funding creates arts that people don't like? It's the latest released test and I can't find any explanation on this online. I am wondering if any 7sager has finished this test and would be so kind as to help! Thank you!

.#help

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

Hi! I am not sure if I missed this in the LR lessons. Is there a lesson for "evaluate" questions? Seems as if they only have one question on the LR for these in modern test, but still would like some help.

If there isn't a lesson, how should I approach this type of question?

So I feel like I'm seeing a bit of a pattern in my practice tests, that being that I tend to do worse on the first Logical Reasoning section, even if that section is "easier"(in terms of how 7sage rates the difficulty of the sections). Of course I'll have no idea what section is the experimental on the actual LSAT, or if there will even be two Logical Reasoning sections, but does anyone have any advice on why this may be happening, or how stop it from happening?