#help

Hi everyone! I have 2 questions.

1st. In logical reasoning, when the question stem asks for the main point, is that slightly different then it asking for the conclusion? I watched an explanation video for a main point, the question stem said “Which one of the following states the main point of the argument?” And JY said that the main point questions are looking for a summary of the conclusion. Rather, I notice when the question stem ask for us to state the conclusion it will be a more “word-for-word” explicit answer, leaning away from a summary type answer. Is this correct? Or does it depend on other factors?

2nd. Okay. Another question. Is not always the same as sometimes in logic?

Thank you so much.

I look forward to the #help!

Hello people of the good earth,

In need of some clear coated advice. I studied for eight months and scored a 150 on the August LSAT. This was my second time writing it as my first time was me being an overconfident rebel thinking I could swoop in a perfect score with 2 months of studying... I was very very wrong. I canceled that score. But, I came back with vengeance and determination and scored a 150. Am I happy with this score? Absolutely not, I was aiming for 160. I wrote the Saturday exam that had dual RC with African Languages and photo apertures. This section was brutal and I wish the best for anyone who got thunderstruck by it too. I must have scored a -15 on that RC alone. The rest of the exam went good. Now I am trying to figure out if I can increase my score by 10 points in two months? I know there is a lot of optimistic people saying its possible but is it a reasonable climb? I was PTing at 150 and I scored exactly 150. I know the perplexity of getting a section drilled to a T but, reading comprehension is my pitiful. So many high and lows with RC. Any advice improving in two month or should I throw in the towel for this year and continue grinding until everything clicks? Any help or opinion will help me immensely. Thank you beautiful people.

Got my scores back and actually scored better than any of my PTs to date - a 179. I've prepped full time since June, so had about two and a half months of study time. I took every PT 60+ and nearly solved every single logic game publicly available during that time.

So I'm going to pivot towards focusing on my app materials for the time being.

Shoutout to the super friendly folks on the forum as well as the explanation videos, test taking UI and analytics 7sage makes available.

I don't know if I'm qualified to give tips, but here's my 2 cents

Logic Games are all practice. You have to drill them till they "click." Once they click, they're all actually pretty similar to each other. Yes, even the crazy mauve dinosaur game will click eventually. It may never become trivial, but it will start to make sense.

Use the analytics feature on Logical Reasoning. Seriously. It saves so. much. time. This was the most useful feature on 7Sage for me. It isolates what question/difficulty combinations trip me up regularly. You can filter the results to only include most recent X tests, which will make the analysis more representative of your recent performance.

For example, I saw in the analytics section in my final run-up to the test that I consistently made errors in difficult (4-5 bubble) Weaken, Parallel Flaw, and Necessary Assumption questions. So I replaced PTs with focused drills on those types of questions & difficulty only. The Problem Set feature is very nifty for this. And about 100 questions per type later, I began seeing significant improvement.

Happy to answer questions if interested. May come back to return the favor by helping folks with harder questions.

Best of luck all!

I've taken the LSAT 4 times now, 144, 159, 159, and I just got my August LSAT with a 156. What doesn't make sense? My PTs were always 170s. I don't want to take this test again, I can't put myself through that stress again. I graduated undergrad in 2017, and had to take some time off for financial and health reasons, I really want to start this cycle. My GPA wasn't that great, 3.4. I was aiming at UNC and University of Texas at Austin but obviously I am far below their median this time. Should I even apply? How is it viewed when you get even lower points on a test you've already taken 3x? Is it even realistic to apply to schools whos median is far above our scores?

Hi 7Sagers,

First of all, congratulations to all who received their target score from the August administration today.

I'll be the first to admit that I am not in that category. On various forums and social media accounts, I've seen a number of folks describing a phenomenon that is similar to my experience, so I wanted to relate that information here to see if others have encountered it as well.

I started studying about one year ago, using a combination of 7Sage, LSAT Trainer, and more recently, the Loophole. My first ever diagnostic was 150, but by the end of the study year (August), I was consistently scoring in the mid-to-upper 160s, even on the most recent practice tests. My last ten PTs ranged between 164-168, with the more recent exams being closer to the 168 mark. During the actual administration, I felt fairly clear-minded and confident. I know now that my first section was experimental, and I felt that the sections actually played to my strengths fairly well.

So, I was pretty devastated to get a score this morning in the mid-150s. Basically, my PT average had dropped by ~10 points, and I'm pretty shattered. However, I'm also surprised to see so many others sharing a similar experience on various threads. Because this exam is undisclosed, it's really hard to gains specific insights into where things went so awry.

So here's my question - and I promise it's not bitter blood - but rather a recognition that others have recounted a similar experience during this administration: could the LSAC have overcorrected the curve for the past August administration?

I understand why the correct answer choice is correct because if robots were the only things going out to space, then why do we need to know anything about human limits but I don't understand why B is incorrect. Isn't the stimulus making the assumption that astronauts share these human limitations? Am I reading this wrong?

So putting aside the fact that I feel like an idiot for missing question 1....why is B incorrect? When I read it the first time, I thought it was correct because if someone were trying to maintain their reduced weight, wouldn't a diet be a poor option for them because once it's over, wouldn't they go back to eating their pre-diet level of food and gain weight?

Someone on the Manhattan forum mentioned that this choice uses the word "should" and therefore it is wrong, but I didn't think that was good enough of a reason. I do see that the stimulus doesn't talk about recommendations or what people should and shouldn't do but if answer choice C had said the word should, the content of this choice would still make it correct, wouldn't it?

Long story short I have been with a tutor since MAY trying to learn a method where you hardly read the passage (only first sentence of each and last sentence of passage) then for every question it’s basically a word search

I’m finding this method just doesn’t work. I’ve been questioning for months whether im an idiot or not but after practice testing with this method and getting 4 correct because her instructions lead me to the wrong answers I think I should change. The worst I did with powerscore method of ViewSTAMP was -9 so missing this many with this new method i’ve been paying for months is really upsetting. Sometimes her method works, for example certain passage sets I will only miss a couple but I really can’t afford to take this gamble anymore. Her method is not consistent with all passages I am finding.

Anyways, i’m testing in October and I NEED advice on how to improve by then in that section even if that means dropping this method and doing something else. What did you do for RC? It’s my worst section and I kind of suck at reading. Whatis easiest for you to understand the passage and helps the most when answering questions. Any advice you can give or tips for me to try is much appreciated

Thank you

.

Has anyone had their icons turn gray yet? I took the LSAT on August 15th and scores were scheduled to be released today, 9/10. However, I’ve seen online that people say your icons should go grey on the day of score release and then sometime that day you will actually get your score. But my icons are still green..

I didn't understand the explanation for the right/wrong answer choices on this one at all. Can anyone help? I initially chose (C) on my PT and I still don't understand how that could be wrong, especially in contrast to answer (A).

Thanks!

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

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-64-section-1-question-17/

Hi everyone, I'm having trouble with the timing on LR. There's no particular question type that I get stuck on- it's usually the difficult ones in the section. It takes me around 40 minutes to complete a section with 3-4 question wrong but when I hurry I get around 7-9 wrong. I'm kinda stuck not sure what to do, any advice would be appreciated.

How do i benefit from the wrong answer journal if i don't even understand how I got the question wrong? obviously, I got it wrong because I didn't select the correct answer and if i know what i did wrong Im sure I would have selected the right answer Lol ..... if anyone can advise me I would really appreciate it. :)

Can someone explain why the answer is D and not E?

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

Hi everyone, I'm new here and I've been stuck on 158 since over a month. I could really use your help. My main problem is the Logical reasoning section. I get over 10 incorrect answers.

So I've been struggling with reading comp... my first diagnostic I got around 8/27... after practicing for awhile I was able to inconsistently get a few points higher. I have now started reading actively and I find this is helping a ton. I'm up to 17/27, but the question types I am now struggling with are inference. Anything that requires me to infer something from the passage I can't seem to wrap my head around. I've never been a strong reader and RC has been a challenge to improve on. Just wondering if anyone has any advice for inference questions, or RC in general.

Hi everyone!

I wanted to start this as an emotional support thread. I am sure I'm not the only one anxious awaiting my score on September 10th! Let's throw out some positive energy! I hope everyone is focusing on their mental health and well-being during this time!

How are you all feeling?!

Hello 7Sage Neighborhood,

While the conversation around Reading Comp is often dominated by high-level strategy talk, I am posting this as a reminder to not forget about the simple things when it comes to, simply, Reading.

I recently had some training to become an ESL tutor, and they showed us a list of tips on how to help a student struggling to comprehend a passage. I was amazed at how relevant this advice, intended for people learning English for the 1st time, was for us as LSAT students.

The gap in English comprehension between an LSAT vs. ESL student may be wide, but the points here are just as salient. I hope you get as much utility out of them as I did. Here they are:

Reading Problem Solving Strategies

1. Reread

If a sentence or paragraph doesn't make sense the first time you read it, read it again, two or three times if necessary. A text often becomes clearer when you read it more than once.

Example: "At first I didn't understand why the character was so angry, but when I read the beginning again I saw that I had missed the part about how his father mistreated him."

2. Read more slowly

Don't rush through a text. Take your time to make sure you are understanding. Also, some texts are more difficult to read than others. Slowing down can help with dense or difficult material.

Example: "This explanation of photosynthesis is pretty complicated. I better slow down and take it step by step."

3. Keep on reading

If you're not sure of a word or if a passage doesn't make sense, keep reading to see if there is information further on that helps the meaning become clear.

Example: "I didn't understand why all of a sudden the father appeared in the story, but reading on I understood that the main character was having a flashback to his childhood."

4. Look up vocabulary (Note for us: Go on a word hunt after Blind Review.)

Sometimes you have to look up a word or check your notes. Not knowing a key word can make the rest of the sentence or paragraph difficult to understand.

Example: "I can see that the author is making an argument against federalism, but I'm not sure I remember what federalism is. I better go look it up."

5. Visualize

Create a picture in your mind. Visualizing what is happening can help you understand it.

Example: "I can just picture a whole street of little neighborhood stores where the main character works, with cups and cigarette butts on the sidewalk and the same people coming by every day. No wonder he feels trapped."

6. Retell (Note for us: During Blind Review.)

If you can retell in your own words something you have read, that means you have understood it well. Stop as you are reading and ask yourself, "Can I explain to someone what I've just read?"

Example: "I think I understand how laws are made, but I'm not sure I could explain it very well to someone else. I better go back and reread it."

7. Self-talk - Ask questions

Stop as you read and ask yourself questions to check your understanding.

Example: "Did that sentence make sense? Did that paragraph make sense? Could I explain it in my own words?"

8. Ask someone (Note for us: After Blind Review.)

If all else fails, you can always ask someone for help.

Hello, 7Sagers!

Been awhile, hope everyone's easing into a nice LDW :)

I posted this on the question's discussion board but was hoping for a variety of views if possible, so I wanted to repost this here. Here's part of the post I was responding to:

...In answer choice E) however, look what happens if we negate it. Acme’s move to OV WILL be accompanied by a significant pay raise.

This is a necessary assumption because if we knew this specific point, then there is the POSSIBILITY of a gap in the argument.

The argument wouldn’t be 100% deducible that the workers won’t be able to afford the new location. That is also the reason why the LSAT writers specifically wrote SIGNIFICANT. Hope this helps

And my reply/question:

Hello, would you be able to clarify something?

I agree that the existence of a possible gap in the argument would obviously weaken it. But it seems to me that said gap could only be said to completely invalidate the argument if we knew the possible gap were an actual gap.

I know this may sound kind of fuzzy, but as an example, if for (E) it had said, “Acme’s move to OV will not be accompanied by a significant enough pay raise to allow Acme employees to afford housing in OV,” that to me would be a clear invalidator, a true gap that “destroys” the argument as we like to say around here.

But in negating (E) as it stands, we have, as you said, allowed for the mere possibility that the conclusion may not follow if we assume certain things about what (E) is getting at. For one thing, (E) is banking on the assumption I mentioned, and maybe others.

I don’t disagree that (E) is the best of the bunch, and the only one of the bunch that could remotely be considered the correct answer. But I guess the puzzling part is this sometimes hazy spectrum b/w “greatly weaken (w/o destroying)” and “absolutely destroy” and where a negated necessary assumption is allowed to fall within it. In my view [destroy → weaken], but the reverse is not necessarily true, and I just don’t see (E) meeting the “absolutely destroy” threshold…

This has been a recurring issue of mine & your help is appreciated!

Link to discussion: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-68-section-3-question-18/

🙏

I'm struggling to see how the "substantial" in answer choice D is justified. This AC does match the passage best when compared to the other choices, but it seems a little too strong to assume.

The question asks what's the function of the a phrase that states "people have a positive moral obligation". How in the world can I make the assumption that having a "positive moral obligation" = "substantial moral obligation"?

Without a doubt, reading for structure is one of the simplest and yet most powerful strategies you can employ when reading a passage. However, does this always apply?

Typically, a passage will be broken down into several paragraphs composed of several sentences. With most passages usually being four paragraphs. This is easy to keep track of and read for structure. What do we do when a passage has many paragraphs composed of one to two sentences? This seems to be an exception to the rule. I have continued to read for structure while going through the passage, I just don't try to memorize where things are, since I find that to be unduly difficult.

I wish there was a way to have all logic games on one pdf? can Seven sage please do that ?

I am now scoring about -3 on LR, -2 on LG, but -7 on RC. I'm lost. So what is the traditional, maybe cliche advice that can help me with reading above a 3rd grade level?

Anyone willing to work together on a blind review for LR questions ?

When I first did this question, I crossed everything off and was left with E. I almost chose it, and then I thought it felt a lot like a trap AC...

The stimulus is telling us that if a resource becomes scarce, new technologies that create the ability to use new resources arise. As people start using these new alternative resources, the demand for the original resource declines, and whatever amount is then present in that original resource can be sold to those who still want it. Then they give some examples of things that were once the sole resource for a thing, but were then supplemented by other resources. The author asserts that bc new technologies are constantly replacing old ones, (conclusion:) we can never run out of natural resources.

E says that the biological requirements for substances like air and water will not be impacted by technological change. I thought, at first, this meant that "there are some resources that technology cannot replace". But then I second guessed myself and thought, "what do we really care if the biological requirements of that thing-- not the thing itself-- is unaffected by technological change? Even if technology can't change the fact that water needs hydrogen and oxygen to be water, couldn't technology develop different resources that could replace water and air in the future?" Couldn't we use other liquids(not water) or other kinds of energy(not air) to, for example, power things? Is the assumption here that water and air, as necessary for life, are not interchangeable with anything else? Like, if water runs out and technology can't replace it, we CAN run out of important natural resources?

Using the example in the passage of trees: sure, the biological requirements of a tree -- what makes a tree a tree-- is not affected by technology. But we can make steel or plastic, a new substance entirely, to serve the same purpose of that wood.

I ended up choosing C over E after I re-read the ACs because I was thinking that if companies won't invest in the new technologies, they won't be created in the first place. I didn't love the words "at first" and I knew my reading of the AC was assuming things, but I just thought that E was sort of irrelevant but attractive.

What am I missing? #help