Hiii,

I've gone through the CC and taken a few PTs, and I notice that my main problem in LR is that I tend to make unreasonable assumptions. Especially for weaken and strengthen questions––I always end up getting stuck between the right and wrong answer choice, and I tend to choose the wrong one based on my own assumptions. In the moment, I feel like my assumption works and it's valid, but after watching JY's videos, I understand why the other AC was correct, yet I continue to face this problem. I guess my main question is: how do I know that the assumption I'm making is unreasonable or reasonable?

Not sure if I'm making any sense, but any guidance/advice/tips would be appreciated!

Does anyone happen to have any tips for these types of questions? Currently its what I repeatedly get wrong in Reading Comp, and leads me to getting 2-3 wrong per section. Any advice that may be helpful specifically for this RC question stem would be really helpful, thanks!

Hi, could someone please help explain what exactly does the stimulus here "for how many of the individuals can it be exactly determined where his or her team places" really ask?

I though it asked those individuals whose specific teams can be determine. But by this read, only S's team is determined while the second-placed and third-placed teams still can't be determined.

I would really appreciate if someone can help. Thanks for your time.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-53-section-2-game-4/

Hey guys,

How can we tell the difference between a causal assertion and a “if then” statement?

I chose D by intuition, but I did struggle for a long while.

JY mentions “causation” between using a car phone & pose a threat to safe driving during his explanation.

In essence, if A causes B, then decrease A also decrease the likelihood of B.

Yes, if we explain it in such a manner, then it makes sense to me.

However, I wonder how do we know “using a car phone seriously distracts the driver, which in turn poses a threat to safe driving” is not a “if then” statement?

If using car phone –> pose threat to safe driving

If this is the case, /using car phone does NOT lead to /pose threat to safe driving (the oldest trick in the book)

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-22-section-4-question-13/

Hello everyone,

I met someone in South Korea who got 180 on the LSAT. He said he copied down four RC passages from each LSAT practice test with hand. He called it a "Dictation Exercise." He said he was able to significantly boost his LSAT score from 172 in April test to 180 in June test. Do you think copying down RC passages with hand will help? I don't think he was lying and I intend to do what he did, but I would like everyone's opinion.

Hi folks

Does anyone have any tips for reading in a more focused manner on a computer screen for RC passages? Does anyone track the lines with their finger on the screen? Any idea if that should be a problem for during the actual exam?

Any tips would be much appreciated!

I am coming to terms that I have serious difficulty with sufficient assumption questions. IS there anyone that can help?

I’ve gone back over my notes but I’m still lost.

Folks,

I'm at the point where I understand the RC...I'm not doing too bad at -4 or -5 if I have 40-44 minutes. But unfortunately we only get 35 minutes, so my question is: How do I close this gap?

When I do the timed version, I either relax and miss a whole passage or rush and miss 10-13...that's a pretty big delta.

Anyone got any advice?

The video explanation was pretty terrible for this one. He really brushes over why answer choice B is correct. Can someone elaborate? Surely the profits of the lightbulb are relevant to the argument that people should change the type of lightbulbs they use, right?

Explanation Video: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-65-section-1-question-03/

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

I have a question on interpreting this point:

At least two compositions are performed either after F and before R, or after R and before F.

I think normally the LSAT is going for F-X-X-R or R-X-X-F (with min 2-X) but being extra cautious in doing this problem I also included a possibility of X-X-R-F-X-X and X-X-F-R-X-X since it doesn't indicate the two compositions must be the same nor must they be between them. Is this incorrect to interpret it this way? Is it safe to assume it will ways be referring to just the first set ups? (F-X-X-R)

So, I've always gone about LR in a kind of unstructured way, I've never formally studied for it and reliably go about -2 to -4 since my diagnostic. I don't actively think about LR in a technical way, like trying to identifying premises and conclusions, highlighting stuff, mapping out lawgic, thinking about trigger words and question types etc. I've continued to depend on a formless sort of instinct for what is right and wrong. I'm sure some of these considerations operate at the back of my mind, but it's nothing deliberate. Although this has served me well until now, as the test approaches I feel doubts about the sustainability of this approach. I feel like even if a resource doesn't improve my scoring range, devoting some time to seriously studying LR would salve my fears and firm up my confidence for the test.

I have Powerscore, the Trainer and naturally 7Sage. What I'm curious about is the Loophole. Do you guy's think it's worth buying that getting through before the November LSAT in my situation? Or any other resource with the Nov test in mind? LG is still my weakest section and I've been grinding it for the past month.

I'm having trouble with these type of logical translation and mapping questions - could someone map out the conditional logic of the stimulus and how the AC fits as the NA?

#help

Hi everyone!

Thank you for reaching out after my last post, it was incredibly helpful! I was wondering if anyone had advice for how to become more fluent in logic? I feel like I'm spending a lot of time thinking it over instead of it being natural. Did flashcards help anyone? Or was it more just heavy repetition of logical reasoning and then intense blind review? Thank you!

Could someone map out the lawgic on this problem? I could only make sense of the question from an intuitive process and not the diagramming. #help

The question stem asks: "The reasoning in the journalist's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument fails to consider that..." and the correct answer, E, says the flaw is that those who donate might not be those who join the party, making the necessary 30% benchmark of support unreachable.

However, this would then SUPPORT the conclusion of the journalist, who says that an educational party is unviable in the long-run.

So, is it then possible to support a conclusion, but criticize a stimulus for failing to do the best possible job of constructing its conclusion (i.e. here we criticize the argument, but not the conclusion)? If anything, this feels like an assumption question.

Hopefully my question makes sense.

Thanks!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-48-section-1-question-24/

Sorry if this is a stupid question...

In PT I recently switched to using both a blue pilot gel pen and a mechanical pencil for diagrams. I find this works so much better than just pen or just pencil because it allows me to clearly mark the universal rules and main game board and then use the pencil to 'write over' the main board as i go, erasing with each question as needed.

This silly little change has got me down to -2/-4 territory on LG far more consistently, mainly because of the time savings and easy visual recognitions. However, it just now occurred to me i may not be allowed both a pen and a pencil in the test :( Any insights?

Any recommendations for moving more quickly on LG? I can only seem to get through 2/4 in the 35 mins.

How important is it to get very good at the miscellaneous games, the games that are traditionally the final game and a lot tougher? Is it worth time foolproofing them?

For the SA and PSA questions, I'm getting absolutely destroyed on the tougher ones. I think it is because I am not identifying the stimulus fast enough and missing the small details that get overlooked. Should I just map it out and understand how to piece together the stimulus first and take my time to decipher it and then answer the question, or should I be just mapping it out in my head and getting better with doing it that way? Anyone got any good strategies they can share? Thank you so much.

The explanatory video glosses over this very quickly. Why is it just assumed that H and M must not be connected? Does it have something to do with the HT not-block?

Any help appreciated; thanks!

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

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-40-section-2-game-3/

Had originally picked C and read this thread that was very helpful in visualizing the stimulus: https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/7343.

However, I'm still having trouble with AC B and C.

For B, I had originally read it as the concentration of O18 INCREASED (so if it was at 90L after the evaporation, then in the ice age, it was actually at 150L), rather than the concentration of O18 in the ice age ocean is just higher than that of the interglacial period.

Could someone explain why C is wrong? It seems to align with the stimulus?

#help

I've browsed through some discussion forums on this passage, but wanted to see if my overall conditional logic thinking was correct. #help

Stim: Fear of retaliation --> deterrence

A) deterrence --> fear of retaliation (switches the logic)

B ) /fear --> deterrence (which also just makes no common sense)

C) deterrence --> fear of retaliation

D) I couldn't figure out a rough logic translation but the overall thought process tracked with that in the stimulus

E) deterrence --> need the best retaliation (which is just irrelevant)

Hi you legends,

Backstory: Cold diagnostic 161 in April. Then my dad almost died of a heart attack. Fortunately he made it through, but I spent May-Aug caring for him/my mom, working full-time, and studying on the side.

Did CC. Got down to -1/3 on LR, -1/2 on RC. Good enough there. Taken 6 PTs so far, have been scoring 168/9.

Sat the Aug LSAT bc in the haze of everything w my dad I forgot to cancel; scored a 165-- low for me.

LG is the problem. I started at like -11, did some of the early problem sets and then sets from PTs 40-63. Got it down to a pretty regular -4. But now things are trending in the wrong direction. For the past 5-10 sets, have been missing more questions... like back up to -7, not finishing sets on time, etc.

A few questions:

What timing strategies do you all use for Logic Games? Unlike RC and LR, I never finish sets early, and rarely even finish with enough time not to have to guess on the last (or, more recently, last 3-4) questions.

Are the LG in the 60s harder, and that's why I'm battling?

Is my regression burnout? (Caring for a sick parent + working more than full time + finishing a book with an academic press + studying for the LSAT has obviously made for quite the year.)

Did anyone have any experience with excellent LG tutoring? I am in my 30s/unmarried so obviously paying for this ~jOuRnEy~ myself, but at this point, I'd be willing to shell out maybe $200 for some excellent private tutoring that really brings my LG score consistently into the -3 range.

Thanks for all your feedback. 7sagers are the sole positive thing about this whole LSAT trash!

Hey everyone,

My PT scores have been varying wildly from low 160s to low 170s, with pretty much all of the variation coming from RC. I consistently get between -2 to -4 on LG and LR, but my RC scores vary from -2 to -10. It seems to have less to do with the question types and more to do with if I happen to be able to retain focus while reading the passages (which appears almost arbitrary). If anybody has any advice about how they stay focused on the passages while reading, I'd be grateful. I try to convince my brain I'm interested in the topics and actively work on a low res summary, but it seems to be hit or mess on whether it's successful.

As the October test is fast approaching, I have been focusing on what has now become my weakest section, reading comprehension. I miss at best -9 questions, and usually do not finish within the time restraints or end up overlooking details because I am rushing. I would like to reduce this number to at least -7, preferably -5. Does anyone have any tried and true techniques they use tackle the passages? I tried focusing on three passages, but I have seen very inconsistent results with that method (I did score 21/27 one time, probably lucky!)