Discussions

LSAT

New post

308 posts in the last 30 days

Posted this as a comment under the Problem Set, but am really unsure of why my reasoning is incorrect so looking for help. Won't add the question here so it doesn't act as a spoiler but I've referenced the question in the post title.

I've pasted my comment below:

"My only qualm with the elimination of E is that if there's a possibility for an earthquake to never happen, or happen less frequently, is that not safer than one that just occurred, but won't for another 99,999 years? I've tried to show my thinking with the comparison below:

Nuclear site 1: 1 earthquake every 10 million years, last occurred 1 million years ago (definitely before living memory).

Nuclear site 2: 1 earthquake every 100,000 years, last occurred yesterday.

Even if an earthquake just occurred at Nuclear site 2, the next one would still occur before the next one at Nuclear site 1. In this case, it would not be safer to build at Nuclear Site 2, even if an earthquake just occurred at site 1?

I understand why C is necessary, but given the reasoning above, don't see how to rule out AC E."

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-2-question-21/

0

Hi all,

I am currently confused on how many scored sections of the 2022 LSAT there are. Is it true there are only 3 sections that are scored on the LSAT exam? From what I understand, the second Logical reasoning question is not scored and will not effect the overall score. Is this correct?

0

JY Ping draws out the game board/game boards in his Logic Game videos. I guess we can say that is the standard way of drawing these; however, I have came to a conclusion that I will never draw the exactly same game board when I tackle the practice test problems. In that essence, is everyone's game board slightly different even though we are using the teachings of the same instructor (JY Ping)?

0

Hi everyone! I'm struggling with LR at the moment. I'm working my way through the Loophole by Ellen Cassidy, and am working through the CLIR-Translation Drills in the book at the moment (been using 7sage mainly for practice sets, LG, and analytics to date). I'm trying to improve my "active reading" skills and memorization -- I'm a big annotater and note-taker, and I like taking my time with reading to fully understand concepts, but I know that that won't cut it on the LR section of the LSAT. The issue with my progress so far on the Loophole and with its CLIR-Translation drills is that it's unclear if I'm doing the CLIR-Translation Drills correctly and therefore hard to tell if I'm heading in the right direction? Maybe I just need to be more patient, but I'm wondering if anyone has been in my position before/ or if anyone has experience with the Loophole? Do they advise I push through until I really get to a place where I really feel like I know the content? I REALLY want to improve my LR score so any help would be appreciated.

0

Hi guys, looking for some advice on LGs. I have been working on them for a few weeks now (ok, like two, lol), and haven't seen much improvement on time. I can answer most/all of the questions successfully (maybe -1 or -2 on a bad day) but my speed isn't improving (or at least not much). I diagram on time I think (a minute or two-ish), but I think what's bogging me down is the time it takes to try out must/can be true q's or must/can be false q's, as well as sometimes making new, more difficult inferences for questions with new if's. Idk if it is just that though, because I am taking more time answering every question than I should be. I've just been drilling problem sets, but not sure if there is a better method I should be looking into. Any advice would be super helpful! Thanks.

4

Does someone mind explaining why D can't be right? I think A makes sense but also feel like paranoid, in the stimulus, is a condition that keeps changing along with changes in society.

Maybe it's because it doesn't most strongly support the answer, but idk I can still see it so would love to hear from others re their thinking. TIA!

0

Hi everyone,

I just finished reviewing LR questions for PT92 and I had a really hard time with questions 23 and 25. After reviewing the video explanation, I realized they're phenomenal examples of focusing on the big picture of the stimulus, parsing it out from the details, and also focusing on the cookie-cutter flaws. Can anyone recommend questions that are similar to them that would be good to practice?

Thank you!

0

I'm getting into the later PT's and I'm finding that they have started including those multiple passage prompts in every Reading Comp section now.

Any tips for these specific passages? They usually give me the most trouble on time, correct answers, and general fatigue because I (naturally) feel like I have to juggle more information than with a single passage. Any specific strategy that has helped any of you deal with these ones?

0

Hello there, I was wondering if anyone could give me some suggestions about how to review of the LG section. I have finished all sample questions of LG in the core curriculum and reviewed these questions with Fool Proof Method. However, moving forward, I don't know if I need to further finish all LG problem sets by type or just start to do PTs to practice under time constraints of a full test. Can anyone help me with this?

0

Hi everyone! I'm reviewing PT 78 Game 3 and I have a question about one of the conditional logic rules.

Rule 2 says that if H - L --> M - L

Original: H - L --> M - L

Contrapositive: L -M --> L --H

When I originally did this game, I split that rule into two possibilities:

  • both H and M before L

  • L before H and M

    • This worked for me - I was able to get all the questions right based on this, and when I watched JY's video on splitting into game boards, every game board ended up falling under one of these two scenarios. HOWEVER, I'm not sure if this is the right way to interpret that rule based on conditional logic.

    Independent of the rest of the rules in the game, does the original rule 2 allow for a situation where the necessary is satisfied (M - L), rule falls away, and we have L - H (so M - L - H)?

    0

    Hi, all!

    I just took PT 90 and watched the RC explanation video for the comparative passages. I noticed that JY read Passage A, attempted the questions, then went back to read Passage B and answer/confirm any remaining questions.

    Is this a good strategy to adopt? Thanks!

    0

    Hi All,

    My question is: from "the more Xs, the more Ys", could I infer "the less Xs, the less Ys"?

    This inference seems neither a valid nor a strongly supported inference to me, because we can't infer a negative corelation from a positive correlation. Still, I am very unsure. Anyone can share your thoughts?

    Thanks a lot.

    Leon

    0

    I am reviewing the RC section of the core curriculum. I was wondering if anyone could give me some suggestions about how to improve the reading speed. As a non-native English speaker, I had hard time finishing reading the full text of some passages (e.g. PT33 Sec 2) within 3.5 minutes. While I tried to speed up the reading, I had hard time grasping the gist, and thereby decreased the accuracy of the answer choices.

    2

    Looking for someone who I can BR with for the June LSAT (BRing with someone has shown to help out for both accountability and discussion of questions), Scoring 163-166 over my last 6 PT's, looking for someone who scores in a similar range and wants to BR and bounce ideas off of for methods/Q strategies/ Etc.

    Reply below if you are interested!

    1

    The question is asking for us to resolve the paradox. Basically, the question is saying that there is an increase in % and a decrease in the total population, and is asking us how this is possible.

    Pre-phrase - The denominator (i.e. the total population must have decreased) That way, you have a higher %.

    B - This is what the answer is, but the part specifically "in the year before last" threw me completely off. I googled what this means, and it basically translates to "two years ago"

    But, how does that resolve the paradox? If two years ago, there was a substantial decline in the population, that doesn't solve the issue. If it were last year, that would totally make sense, but the year before last = 2 years ago which is already provided in the stimulus.

    Are they alluding to two different times two years ago? (i.e. Maybe the death happened in the later part of the year whilst the 32 case count was from the earlier part of the year?)

    Sorry if I am slow (I know, it's question #1), but that clause was a red flag for me that deterred me in choosing it.

    Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-15-section-1-passage-1-questions/

    0

    Hey I just had a quick question and wondered if anyone had some advice on how to get through all 4 passages on the reading comp section. Accuracy isn't really my problem, it seems like time is as I can only complete 2 passages. Any advice? How fast are some of you reading?

    3

    Confirm action

    Are you sure?