Hi,

I have been taking practice tests since end of June till now, and I keep on getting -11 to -15 on LR sections. My LSAT is in October and I am quite nervous about whether I will be able to improve on the LR sections in the next 2 months, especially since I am going into my fourth year of my undergrad in the fall.

Does anyone have any general tips for me on how to improve on LR sections??

Thank you! #help

I take the exam on Sunday and im in need of some last minute tips. I dont plan on taking another PT but I will be drilling and taking individual sections over the next 3 days.

How do I tackle 4-5 level LR questions? On the PT I just took I got every question right except for the 6 questions that were 4-5 level difficulty. I thought I got them all right but I fell for every trap answer ):

Any suggestions on increasing RC score a couple points? Even if it is new strategies / how to eliminate wrong answer choices? Im awful at this section and have not been able to increase my score consistently. The best I've gone was -6 but just now I got -11.

Any guesses what category it will be? I'm assuming LR...

I finished the logical reasoning section of the CC. Upon learning the basics of logic, I realized I am noticing that people, specifically lawyers and those who had studied for the LSAT in the past, actually use these logical indicators when they talk. For example, in the Netflix drama, Better Call Saul, Saul and his colleagues always use logical indicators. Furthermore, I begin to speak using logics, and it is just interesting. I am always drawing Lawgic in my head. I am just wondering if any of you, LSAT experts, could write the following statement in Lawgic as I still need to practice writing statements in Lawgic within my mind. Here it is:

If you do not want to do it, I am moving forward without you.

Here is the Lawgic I have:

/W → /Y

W= Want

Y= You

Could you all please see if this is correct?

Best,

Ken

I chose E and was very confident about it on both timed run and BR. My reasoning was, the first premise is talking about "legislation," and the conclusion is about a "trade agreement." I thought it was super vague whether a trade agreement should be considered a legislation since we don't even know who are the parties involved - it could well be a trade agreement between a few private companies and it would have nothing to do with legislation. I know I am making a lot of assumptions here, but I just didn't feel safe to assume that a trade agreement = legislation, either. E basically says the principle doesn't apply to the specific case of the trade agreement, but it turned out to be wrong.

I can totally understand why B is correct. But why is E be wrong? Am I just thinking too much? How can I avoid this kind of overthinking in LR? Thanks so much! Any help is appreciated.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-81-section-2-question-23/

help

Shouldn’t A be wrong because we can’t assume that CAN = SOMETIMES

I CAN GET HURT ===//==== I SOMETIMES GET HURT

Thought D would make the most sense as the main point is that PW can be undermined by its own tastes.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-88-section-2-question-20/

With the test quickly approaching, there's pretty much nothing I can do at this point but make jokes about my deepest worries surrounding the test. So, does anyone feel like they have a strong feeling as to what the extra section will be? My heart is hoping for LG, but my brain is saying (and fearing) an extra RC. I think by telling myself I'll be retaking in October no matter what, my anxiety has been greatly reduced. However, I can't shake the feeling that I'll be doomed to proctor issues. What's everyone else doing this week to relax?

Citizen's Sufficient Condition: Interest in helping the economy

Citizen's Necessary Condition: Building a business park

That is to say, if one has an interest in helping the economy it is a given that they would build a business park; if they do not build a business park then there is no way they have an interest in helping the economy.

Question is NA, focus on the above necessary condition when looking at answer choices - If she did not believe that building a business park would help the economy, then fail necessary -> fail sufficient implies she has no interest in helping the economy, which disagrees with the assumption that she does not believe that the business park would help.

In other words, if she does not believe a business park would help she could still be acting in the economy's best interest by doing what she believes would help. This is why it is required for the citizens to assume she knows that building a business park is better than the highway.

Just kills me on the inside when I can rock the tough ones and I miss the super easy ones according to 7Sage :)

I do very well on LR questions but always trip up in one of the following situations:

Hi, I have a question:

Premise: A -m-> B --> C

Invalid Conclusion: A --> C

Is A --> C necessarily false? Or is it just not necessarily true? Or do we simply not know?

I am taking the August LSAT and was hoping to get some tips for last minute improvement on LGs, my worst section by far. I know this is something that should have been shored months ago but I can only look forward. Yesterday I took PT 83 and did very well besides LG, where I got ¡-15! Suffice to say, I had a bit a major freakout yesterday but now I am ready to get to work.

My current range on PT's is 161 to 166, I really hoped to be in the high 160's - low 170's but my biggest obstacle are the games. My avg's are (LR -4, RC -5.5, LG -8.2). Unfortunately my scores are a bit skewed because the LR no longer counts as 2/4 of the LSAT grade.

My current plan is to take one more PT at some point this week but for the rest of the week just drill logic games. I know it is the easiest section to improve, and I hope to get it close to -2 by the October test, but for now what would your suggestions be for quick improvement. Should I take the same tests over and over again until I get the assumptions down perfectly? Or take a wide range of LG sets so that while question types are similar, the actual details are different and I need to improvise my assumptions? Are there any specific LG types that might be the easiest to perfect and maybe I should focus on those?

Any, and I mean any, suggestions are appreciated as I try to bump my score up.

Omg I can't believe after 5 months of studying I'm taking the LSAT in a couple days. Newer LR questions are making me very nervous and I don't know what else I can do in the following days to improve my score just a bit.

Any one else feeling this way?

Fiction--m-- LA

Fiction --s--Requested from writers

Nonfiction given SA/Published----> RF or Requested

I don't understand how to determine why A is incorrect...if a manuscript is unrequested, does that mean it is either a fiction book that was from a literary agent or a nonfiction book from a renown figure?

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

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-70-section-4-question-21/

Hi everyone!

I have been studying for the LSAT for about three months now, and I just cannot seem to bring my logical reasoning score up. On my practice tests, I typically get about 7-10 questions wrong (the best I have scored is -4). I have tried so many different resources, including the Loophole and the LSAT trainer. I have been practicing a lot. I can identify the question types, and I feel pretty confident about my skills until I take a prep test or drill. This just seems to be an ongoing cycle and I was just wondering if anyone had any tips on how I can overcome this? Perhaps there are some people out there who have been in the same boat and could share some advice based on their experiences. Any insight and advice would be MUCH appreciated. Thank you :)

Hello fellow 7sagers, first time test taker here. I am taking the August 2021 LSAT and was wondering what protocols previous and fellow first-time test takers are following during the last >week of prep before the test regarding the taking of full, timed PTs. I believe this thread might be helpful to others in my position as well, considering this August test is a little unprecedented with the introduction of the new-ish format.

For some context, I have 2 "fresh" PTs left, (89 and M20), and was planning on taking 89 sometime within the next few days, and then spending the remaining time chopping up M20 for timed sections/practice and light drilling before my big day on Saturday.

Additionally, I started my prep this summer with a 150 diagnostic, and am currently averaging around 167 (deriving this average from my most recent PT's which have been in the 80's and 70's). I scored a 169 on PT 71 last Wednesday, but then experienced significant (although not debilitating) burnout, so I took the next two days off. With this in mind, I'm wondering if I should even bother PT'ing again before Saturday, or just drill/do timed sections for the remaining week. Throughout this entire prep I have never spent a full week without doing at least one PT. I would like to sit down and do another full run-through on LawHub with a fresh 89 under test conditions, but at the same time I would like to avoid more burnout (which may or may not even happen).

Thanks for any advice.

The title says it all.

What is the best way to approach these types of questions? I'm not completely sure how I should think about them.

I was making major progress on all of my sections, but RC seems to have taken a turn for the worst. The decline started at the same time I began taking my PTs on Lawhub in preparation for the exam. I am drilling 4-passage sections and doing really well, but it’s not transferring to my PTs. The most concerning thing is I didn’t feel like I did badly on my PTs… Any tips, advice, prior experience with this phenomenon? Thank you in advance!

So I got this question wrong under timed conditions (chose D), but then in blind review had an inkling that answer choice (E) was correct, even though I still couldn't completely rule out (D). Here was my blind review explanation:

(D) If the number of cops had increased, this at least seems like it would mitigate the reasoning used by the city official, because there were sufficient number of cops to deal with the population increases (according to experts). So what the citizen said was more substantiated, by this logic. I think so at least?

(E) So this is suggesting that the healthcare has improved a bunch, and the murder rate would have gone up even more drastically than the small pop increases, taking away the assumption that city official had made that the murder rate increased incrementally/steadily with population. I think this is the strongest counter to the city officials argument because it exposes the assumption/argument more, but I don't know why (D) is incorrect either, entirely.

Maybe (D) because more cops are not necessarily more equipped to deter violent crime, and what the city official says still stands, that the increase in pop is still a more relevant factor that the citizen is not considering. Maybe they weren't doing anything to deter violent crime before, and they are still not, and therefore what the citizen is saying is still incorrect, and what the city official is saying is still reasonable?

Please help me resolve/reconcile/explain why (D) is wrong and (E) is right, the right way!

Thanks! :)

I liked B and D as answer choices. Why is D irrelevant? I've read online explanations that stated it isn't relevant whether or not the dinosaur found was related to the T-rex, but why is that? If the recently discovered dino was related to T.rex, wouldn't that weaken the connection between having T-rex features (oversized head, etc) and needing these features to accommodate their great size?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-80-section-4-question-22/

I have been doing a combination of drills recently cover from accuracy to timing. For instance, one day I would do a group of medium level passages, timed and a timed LR section. The next day I would do some drills focus on techniques and accuracy. My drilling results is somewhat OK(-3/4 in LR and -4/5 in RC, and -2 in LG). But when I took PT yesterday my PT results was so much lower than my expedition(-6 in LR, -8in RC and -7 in LG). I feel my work throughout the week is not reflected. Any suggestions about what I should do?

Thanks!

In the last sentence of the stimulus, does "eliminate" mean completely removing ALL demeaning work, or only reducing the sum total of demeaning work? The last sentence says the robots will only "substitute one type of demeaning work for another" so is he arguing that the sum TOTAL of demeaning work will remain the same, even if we started using robots?

And isn't the author assuming that the engineer's job and "least expensive, least demanding" labor is "demeaning?" Why isn't that a flaw?

Although I am getting better at locating the conclusion in the stimulus, the answer choices are throwing curve balls and hard punches below the belt. Can someone help me please......?

On this question, while I was able to understand and agree that the conclusion was sentence 1, the answer choices all look so..... attractive and it is difficult to understand why the answers are right and wrong. In speeding through this question, I took a second look thereby, in studying and going back, they all look so... wrong to the point that I would disagree that any of them are correct.

The correct AC, (B), allegedly makes a recommendation "..., is advisable...", and allegedly includes additional information as per "..., in as high proportion of their experiments....".

Help..........!!!!!!!?????

I assume it is a relationship between the words "possible" and "can"?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-june-2007-section-2-question-10/

Hey so I suck at MSS questions. I'm great at finding the conclusion questions and MBT questions so I'm surprised I do poorly on a question type that's so related to the aforementioned types. When analyzing the stimulus, I understand what I read but I'm the type of person who needs certainty to feel like they understand something. So when inferences that are based on a subjective analysis of the stimulus, I tend to struggle. Are there any drills I could do outside of grinding MSS questions to improve on this question type?