Hello! I am having trouble with main point questions. These questions to me have the hardest ACs to distinguish from each other. I am doing well in my studies, with a typical low 170s score and usualy -4/-5 but can be up to -7 on RC. I find that I always get a main point question wrong. Even if I feel i have a solid understanding of the passage and get no other questions wrong for that passage.

Any tips? What processes or tricks do you guys use for main point questions?

I took the November LSAT, did well, but not well enough considering my gpa (f in the chat) so I'm taking it again in January...but it's been a whole month and I haven't started studying again, and have literally zero motivation, and it feels like there's not enough time left to increase my score by 3 points. Helpppp

I'm really struggling to set up my game boards both quickly and in a manner that is helpful to solve the games. For example, I did PT 34, S4 today and could not for the life of me figure out how to set up the game board. Once I watched the explanation, it made total sense and it took me about :30 to answer each question.

Are there videos/tutorials I'm missing outside of these following lessons?:

Introduction to Logic Games & Sequencing Games

Sequencing Games with a Twist

Introduction to Grouping Games: The In-Out Games

Grouping Games

Grouping Games with a Chart

Grouping and Sequencing Games

Any other resources on learning how to set up game boards quickly and in a manner that actually helps the game would be much appreciated!

Is there any way to sort analytics based on type of passages for reading comp? I want to see the overall trends in comparative passages I've done in PTs to see which questions I've most commonly missed so I can focus on those. #help

Hey all. I am currently PTing between 169-171. Over half my wrong answers come from RC, which I have admittedly done very, very little practice with. I usually go -5 to -7. Has anyone found success with the memory method?

My tactic has always been to read the passage deeply for 3-4 minutes, highlighting and notating the crap out of it, and doing the questions quickly. I am unwilling to change this tactic at the moment because I am taking my first LSAT in January.

#help

PT51 LG#2

Regarding rule #2,

/K and /L → J

I think the contrapositive of this should be,

= J-K and J-L

Why JY skipped 1) and 2)?

Did I miss something?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-51-section-4-game-2/

Hi Guys , i have done all LG PT from 50-92 and was wondering how useful it is to practice older PT LG section now? Or is it best to just drill all new ones again and ai for only perfection? Thank you!!

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?

Where do I find evidence to support the correct answer choice (E)?

I noticed that the comparative passages started at PT 52 and go only up to PT 88. Have they changed the later/most recent RC sections to not have a comparative passage? Will there be a comparative passage on future tests?

One of the main goals in reading comprehension is to accurately and descriptively identify the tone of the author of the passage. I did find a list of words on an academic website that are used to convey the tone of the author. However, it would be more beneficial if we try on our own to think and come up with a list. Also, for each word, try to give a quick explanation/meaning of the word!

I will start us out with a few.

The authors tone could be:

Curious - fascinated with the subject of the passage and wants to explore the topic further.

Approving - reinforces the topics presented in the passage and is willing to promote it.

Indifferent - Is neutral with the information discussed in the passage, neither positive or negative.

Answer B vs A....why?

hey guys I am having some issues understanding some of the Core Curriculum especially logic. I would appreciate if someone can help thank you.

I was thrown off by this one; even took a few times to read it before I realized what I did wrong. What I failed to recognize is that he seems to be assumed the reason for the complaints is the complainant's difference in political opinion; this has, in fact, not been demonstrated to be true.

Usually 1 of them is because I change my answer from correct during timed to incorrect during untimed. Do I redo these sets? I already used up all 12.

I have a spreadsheet of LG sections I have done, and one piece of information I write down is the target time.

It seems that lately, some of the times for particular games have been changing, sometimes rather by relatively large increments (say ~1.5 minutes). Take for instance the following:

On PT23, the new and (old) times are: 5:31 (5:53), 10:40 (10:40), 10:15 (11:20), and 8:30 (7:37).

The same occurred on PT28. Game 2 is now 10:53 as opposed to ~12:40, and Game 3 is now 9:30 as opposed to ~10:45.

I understand that these times are pegged to how a particular subset (namely people who get -1 or 0 on LG) do, but I am wondering if this change is intended or if it's merely an artifact. Could @studentservice or any of the course designers chime in on this?

I feel silly for getting this two star flaw question wrong in timed and in BR lol. I actually pre-phrased both answers which is why I found this one so difficult.

When I read the stimulus the first issue I noted was that we have no context about what the number of fatalities mean relative to how many people climbed the mountain/are on the roads every day. Maybe there were only 200 people who attempted to climb Mount Everest over a span of 80 years, given that it’s one of the most dangerous in the world, in that sense, nearly every person who tried to climb it died! This would make it seem pretty dangerous.

What drew me to AC E is that the argument does address a generalization flaw? It concludes that 'mountain climbing dangerous have been exaggerated' and appeals to evidence based on death tolls for one of the most dangerous mountains. How does AC E not address this issue?

After analyzing the Q this the only explanation I can come up with: even if we knew numbers about other mountain fatalities, we are still lacking the relevant context about what those numbers would mean in terms of how dangerous those mountains are. (ie: how many people climbed those mountains, was it enough to make the danger factor lower or higher).

Would appreciate if someone could let me know if these thoughts are correct! I'd love to not waste time on two star flaw questions lol. I guess I'm still left confused because, in some sense, wouldn't you need to know data on other mountains to come to such a general conclusion?

Admin: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-88-section-4-question-10/

For strengthening questions, we know that we need to defend the argument by:

-Strengthening data in stim i.e. survey results, data, and showing that there are no mistakes with data.

-For causal:

->Eliminate alternate causes

->Prove when cause occurs so does effect

->Show that relationship is not reverse

So my question now is, for strengthening questions that include a premise booster or restate that a premise is in fact true, will this ever be the correct AC?

It seems to me that it won't, but I don't really understand why since it seems that this would fall under the first bullet for strengthening an argument. However, I have yet to see it be correct ever. I am scoring in the low 170s and when I fall for this "premise booster" AC, it's always wrong and I feel stupid for choosing it. I think it's because I don't really understand how affirming the premise's truth doesn't strengthen an argument.

Can anyone #help me understand?

Hi Guys , i have done all LG PT from 50-92 and was wondering how useful it is to practice older PT LG section now? Or is it best to just drill all new ones again and ai for only perfection? Thank you!!

So I took the October 2021 LSAT and did alright. With only about a month of true preparation I scored in the mid 150's, and was higher than any of the practice tests. Probably could have done better, but literally a few hours before the test I became very ill with the flu. I couldn't cancel or reschedule at that point so I stuck it out. Unfortunately my score was few points short for the schools that are my top choices (mainly due to pricing and being close to home). So here I go taking the LSAT again!

I just want to improve my score enough to reach 158-160, which shouldn't be too much of a problem, but my goal is to score in the mid 160's. Anything higher would be a great surprise!

Now I am just wondering how I should approach studying. Due to personal reasons I was unable to start up studying again until now. I recently discovered 7Sage because I wanted another resource to help prepare. Should I just jump into the preptests while sprinkling in the lessons, or do I grind out the lessons and quizzes and focus on the preptest towards the end with a couple weeks to go? Any advice is welcome!

Hi everyone,

I understand that in a Strengthen question our task is to identify an AC that will make the conclusion more likely to be true.

In a Necessary Assumption question our task is to identify an AC the argument needs in order to have a chance to be true.

My question is, are there any fundamental differences between the two?

Any input would be highly appreciated. Thank you!

Hi, I was just wondering if anyone has created a list of the LR question types and what the anticipated correct answer/ anticipated wrong answer looks like per question type. I remember coming across this type of list when I was first studying for the LSAT but cannot seem to find it anymore. I am hoping to work on mine this weekend and would love to cross-reference with another's.

Does anyone else feel like the correct answer on this one, C, attacks the premise directly? The Stem says that if we lower opera production costs so that they can be funded purely by box office tickets, we can do away with large corporate sponsorships which only play the most famous operas. AC C (for a weakener Q) states that operas cannot be funded without the help of large corporate sponsorships. Is this question one of those very rare ones where we do in fact attack the premise or am I misunderstanding something else about this question?

Hi everyone, I took the test two days ago and I’ve tried not to think about it but I‘m starting to feel that I didn’t do as well as I planned to. I think LG went well, I was confident about my answers except for one question. RC I feel okay about but given that this section has always varied for me (-5 to -8) I can’t say for sure. LR is the toss-up. I don’t know if you guys have experienced this but the questions seemed foreign and I just can’t pinpoint why. Usually in practice I’m able to eliminate and narrow down to two choices but for several questions I had three choices still remaining and couldn’t quite pinpoint the purpose of the stimulus. I felt this way about LR in August (first time taking) as well but at that point I thought perhaps I just didn’t have enough experience. Obviously I won’t know my score until December but I’m feeling bummed that the section I was most excited about I just couldn’t execute as planned.

With about two months to January, I am thinking about reading the Loophole — has this been helpful for any of you? My goal score is 170 and at this point I feel like maybe I should go back to the basics and try the sections untimed to guage my accuracy before continuing with timed practices. Would appreciate all advice! Thanks!

I do not know what is happening with my brain, maybe I am slow, but untimed all of the games are perfect. Timed is a disaster. I do not have enough time to make good inferences. How did you master thinking fast with the games? Practice only? Or are there any other tips?