By problem sets I mean the LR ones with 5 questions each, usually in the middle range (in the numbered list of problem sets). I feel like my brain is burning out too quickly considering that I would have to solve 50 LR questions on the real LSAT.

Also, how many "3+ difficulty" questions are there usually in a single LR section (approx. 25 questions total)? I'm getting -1 or -0 on problem sets with questions below or equal to "3 difficulty" but getting more than 1 wrong in sets with questions with "3+ difficulty" and am scared :/

Any help would be very appreciated, thanks guys.

Hi everyone,

I am signed up for the March 2022 exam and would love any advice on my situation:

My goal score is a 170, and I have taken 6 full PTs (five in the 70s and one in the 80s) scoring in the 162-165 range with my blind review scores in the 172-177 range. My typical-timed breakdown is:

-1 to 0 LG

-4 to -3 in LR

-10 to -8 in RC

Given that we’re a little under 6 weeks away, would improving to my goal score before the March test be doable?

If so, what else could I be working on given the time span? My focus is surely on RC along with 1-2 full PTs/week with thorough review (and rewatching recorded takes). Thank you in advance! 🙏

Hello. If I have a firm grasp on LR before starting my subscription, what do I do once I purchase? Do I just create problem sets of 30?

Am having trouble with this question - could someone let me know if I'm thinking about the stimulus (and ACs) correctly?

Stim:

P1: When old trees die, the decomposition releases their stored CO2

P2: Harvesting old trees makes more room for young trees (who can absorb more CO2 than old trees)

C: Harvesting old trees for manufacturing things would reduce CO2 (and therefore we'd avoid the whole decomposing issue?)

My thoughts: Okay, that seems like it makes relative sense. There's an assumption there that the CO2 release by decomposed old trees would be offset by the young trees that can absorb more CO2.

ACs:

A - Animal species? Irrelevant.

B - At first I immediately eliminated this AC because it just didn't seem to make any sense. After more reading, it seems like okay, if the harvested old trees were manufactured into products that would decompose super quickly, we could still run into the CO2 decomposition issue.

C - This was the AC I originally picked, thinking that since a young tree contains 10 CO2 vs an old tree that contains 40 CO2, then clearly the young tree can't offset the decomposition of an old tree. But I think this AC is actually irrelevant because of course a young tree at a snapshot would contain less CO2 than an old tree would - but this seems to attack P2?

D - Irrelevant, dont need to know where most of the CO2 in a forest comes from.

E - I feel like this AC is trying to get us to attack P2 in a similar way C is, but we'd have to also assume that size of trees has some sort of correlation with CO2 absorption.

#help

So I just started training for the LSAT and I am only focusing on the Logic Games for the next couple weeks. Is it smart to take a single problem set in under 9 minutes, then review what I got wrong through the explanation videos? Or should I really challenge myself by taking more than game per set?

Originally got this question wrong (picked E), but I think I understand why C is right - could someone confirm my thinking?

Stim:

P: Infant death rates have declined historically

C: But that doesn't necessarily mean the babies currently born are actually healthier now.

Hm, why is that? Is it that they are more likely to live but are still really weak when they're born?

ACs:

A - We're not focused on the rates for infant mortality. The stim already addresses some localities where the rates have increased.

B - This explains why 51%+ of the infants who are already part of that mortality rate died, but doesn't explain why the infants who survived aren't necessarily healthier.

C - Originally I eliminated this AC because I misunderstood the stimulus when it came to "infant mortality" and what actually meant to be part of that rate. But if the US is developing awesome tech that is able to keep babies alive, then that explains why babies are dying are lower rates - we're able to save them better, but nothing's really changed in their unhealthy state during birth.

D - Again, not focused on infant mortality rates

E - Originally picked this one because C just didn't click for me, so I tried to justify that E introduced some sort of alternative cause as to why they're not as healthy. But this has one huge issue: The stim is talking about babies at BIRTH and this AC is talking about babies who grow into toddlers, young kids, etc.

#help

For me, both are to support the argument.

But, it’s to hard to distinguish how to approach to each.

Is there anyone who can explain how to approach to each Q?

Thanks!

Hello, I wonder if anyone could help me to locate a LR question, which I guess I came across while I was doing core curriculum or PTs in 50s.

The question is about a principle labeling a carrot as "nonfat":

If we are to label an actually nonfat food like a carrot as "nonfat", it should be mistakenly believed to be a fatty food.

Also, if people mistakenly believe a nonfat food as a fat food and if that nonfat food is labeled as nonfat food, it may be labeled as "nonfat".

I wish I could give you more information about the question.. or is there any way to filter out prep questions using a keyword?

#help

Are there breakdowns for the prep test questions? If yes could someone tell me how to access them.

Can someone please explain why A is correct? Here was my initial breakdown/reasoning for why I thought E was the right point of issue:

Stim: There were some footprints found.

Dr. T: These are obviously hominid footprints because they have some human characteristics.

Dr. R: No Dr. T, these are not obviously hominid footprints because if you're right, then these hominids would've walked in a really weird way that's unlikely

ACs:

A: Originally got rid of A because it seemed like they both acknowledged the significance of the evidence, just that they interpreted the "squarish heel and a big toe etc" evidence differently in terms of what it meant

B: Neither of them really touch on this - seems like they both agree this set of footprints is at least somewhat distinguishable

C: Gait? Isn't mentioned by either

D: Dr. R isn't saying that this isn't enough evidence to support T's conclusion, she's saying that the evidence doesn't support the conclusion

E: R mentions how weird it would be if the hominids walked "in an unexpected cross-stepping manner, by placing the left foot to the right of the right foot," which I assumed was just walking upright. Hence why I chose E

#help

I've been studying for well over a year and reading comp is the section I'm just not getting any better at, in fact I've gotten worse. After nearly acing my LG and LR (-2 combined),RC has single-handedly out of the 170s. I score anywhere from -5 to -8. At this point, I'm just not sure law school is for me if I can't simply read and do well answering questions. I've tried many different methods but no one strategy yields significantly more positive results than another. I'm really unsure of what to do but for the first time in my studying I'm close to calling it quits (for financial reasons I'm not willing to go into a certain amount of debt which requires a good LSAT for the target schools I'm looking at).

Any advice?

Can someone validate my reasoning for why A is right and E is wrong (I had originally picked E):

Stim:

The new device can just cancel out the noise that the vacuum makes, so because of this, this new device can operate more efficiently/use less electricity than the old-school silencers. Why?

A:

Historically, there's been a tradeoff between silencing noise and efficiency, so for the old-school silencers, having to design that requires using comparatively more energy.

E:

This only refers to silencers in general and how they make cleaners less efficient, so we don't actually know what the difference is between these new silencer devices vs the old-school silencers.

#help

Hi! I'm having trouble distinguishing why option B was incorrect when option E was correct in problem PT7 S4 Q02. Would someone be able to explain it for me?

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

After studying for almost 2 years I have come to the conclusion that it is nearly impossible to improve on RC and to do all 4 passages under timed conditions. What are some ways that helped you get to all 4 passages under timed conditions as well as get under double digits with regards to wrong answers? I usually get 10-12 wrong on RC sections and I want to at least get to -9.

Thanks.

This is a necessary assumption question. The correct answer : "parts that satisfy our govt standards are not the same poor quality as cheap foreign parts." But the premise already states that the country has the toughest automotive tests in the world. I want to understand that this assumption is not contradicting the premise.

Where am I getting wrong?

If someone has done this question about water vapor and oceans and got it correct: can you please explain to me? I am not understanding the correlation between precipitation and the concentration of oxygen in seawater. I chose A originally if someone can also tell my why thats wrong. Thank you guys!! Appreciate any help :)

Totally have no idea how to set up the game board.

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

I've done close to 12 PTs in the past month and I've noticed that my LG score varies significantly than that of my drills. Usually when drilling LG I can get anywhere from -4 to -0 on a cold section. However, when taking PTs my LGs are awful ranging from -4 to -8 in some cases. Does anyone have any tips on how to close this gap ? I think I'm decent at LG but for some I just cant rely on it during an actual PT.

I'll be sitting for the March 22 LSAT. I want to be familiar with the most current trends in Logic Games. Which PT do i start at and work forward from? Thanks so much.

The correct answer is B, however I just need some help decoding what it actually means. Could someone please help me out and maybe rephrase that answer in a different way? Thanks!

Does anyone have advice for parallel reasoning and weakening questions? I'm on the struggle buss with those types of questions orrr any advice at all for LR! Thanks(:

I began my LSAT journey long ago in August 2020. At first, it started with light research about the LSAT and then an intense urge to use Khan Academy's free LSAT services. It was a mistake. After burning through most of the recent available PTs, I found 7Sage and the PowerScore bibles. PowerScore really helped to solidify some basic principles of the test but I also realized it wasn't enough. When 7Sage offered their reduced fee for those with fee waivers, I started going through the core curriculum. Now, over a year a later, I just took my fourth LSAT in January and it felt great. I have gone through nearly every question in LSAT existence (that is available). My takeaways are:

I went from a 154 diagnostic score, which is probably inflated since Khan Academy tells you to keep going when you run out of time, to scoring only in the 170s. By the time I sat down for the January LSAT, my average sections were LG (-0), LR (-1 to -2), and RC (-2 to -5) on average. The LSAT is certainly not an IQ test and is completely learnable if you give yourself the time!

I hovered between (C) and (D) but ultimately chose (C) because I felt that (D)'s use of the word "misrepresent" was incorrect - it seems that the organicists don't misrepresent traditional analytical methods, so much as they simply don't understand them. Misrepresentation carries the weight of intentionality, which is forfeited when it's revealed that someone is simply ignorant.

Other than that, the answers strike me as very similar - would love to understand why (D) is right!

Thanks.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-25-section-1-passage-4-questions/

Hi All! Quick question? Regarding Lawgic and translation rules for group 3 and 4. I understand I need to pick either idea, then negate that idea etc. I am getting stuck at times if the idea I choose is already negated. Do I always remove the negation from the idea? I'm getting stuck in the rule of negating. Thanks for the help!

This is the LR question about a university president's concerns that applicant numbers are shrinking due to the low tuition costs of the university.

(A) suggests that the missing assumption is that the proposed reason for shrinking applicant numbers is true (if that proposition is false, the conclusion is false)

(D) suggests that there are no other reasons to explain the university's shrinking number of applicants (i.e. the original hypothesis is true).

These appear absolutely identical to me. Can someone explain how they are not?

Thanks!

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-62-section-2-question-25/