Are the following two equivalent?

(E1) --(s)-- (-E2)

(E2) --(s)-- (-E1)

What does Assumes without warrant mean?

I'm confused how this is a fallacy.

If I'm a hypocrite, saying that my reasoning is invalid because I'm a hypocrite is itself a fallacy.

**Admin Note:**https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-84-section-3-question-22/

Hey Everyone,

I was wondering if anyone had more in depth tips about reading comprehension besides reading more. I'm in a rut where my reading comprehension is usually -6 to -10. I'm having trouble with author inference questions/most strongly supported according to the passage questions, and would really appreciate some guidance/input. Also, I'm wondering what strategies people use to get through specific passage types like art or science if that's possible.

Thanks!

Hi Everyone!

This seems to be a recurring theme in several LR questions, so perhaps worth considering. When attacking a support (premise to conclusion) in an argument, isn't the use of "some" i.e. other cases or situations, irrelevant - as we cannot know whether our case at hand falls within the scope of that "some".

Take for example the below question on proto-indo-european languages: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-29-section-1-question-16/

Here, we have to assume that PIE falls within the "some" languages which do not have words for prominent environmental conditions.

However, in the question on chess players and humming (link below), apparently it is wrong to assume that the humming falls within the scope of "some" involuntary actions as per AC (C).

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-4-question-25/

Any thoughts welcome!

I felt myself might be the worst RC test taker in the discussion section. I have no idea how to improve it. Focusing on big picture has no help for me. I simply do not understand what the passage was talking about! My LR is now -5 but RC score could not be worse.

It's the biggest obstacle on my LSAT journey.

I HATE this section with a passion. I was never good at it, I never was able to finish on time, I tried every skill out there for studying and practicing and NOTHING worked. I do not consider myself a slow reader, but I do consider myself someone who tries to pay attention to every detail. My thought process was comprehension > generalization; I thought it was worth going slower if it meant I could understand the passage better, but this didn't help. What it did do was make me focus so much on the details that I would not only be snail slow, but I would second guess answers due to me giving my brain enough time to over-evaluate questions or focus on the wrong things. HOWEVER, I think I have finally hit a holy grail...and it might sound unorthodox...but LSAT be making you do some crazy things sometimes.

My Method: What I found works best for me is an alternating method of focus and skim. As I start the passage, I read the first sentence slow and ask myself what is going on. I make sure I can pick out a focal topic or something to anchor my mind to. Then, I skim through the main body of the paragraph, focusing on simply acknowledging the details and what they are generally saying. Once I get to the last 1 or 2 sentences of the paragraph (nothing more), I slow down and focus on identifying how the author closes out the paragraph. I do this process for each paragraph: first sentence focus, main body skimming, last sentence focus. (If the paragraph is short, such as only consisting of two long sentences, then I read the whole thing in a medium pace manner, mainly paying attention to its topic & what its purpose is for being so short.)

What I have found is that this method not only allows me to recognize the details of the passage, but it helps me naturally focus on the general idea. Focusing on the general idea when each paragraph is saying something different is easier said then done, but pin pointing specific spots in the passage that you know you're going to slow down at and focus on makes it easier to keep track of your thoughts and passage development. By doing this method, I still find myself having to reference the passage, but I can usually find where the evidence is fairly quickly and move on.

I used to NEVER be able to finish the RC section, and even when I gave myself more time, I still would get -8/9 wrong. Now that I do this method, I am finishing the section for the first time, and I even finished one yesterday with a whole 5 minutes to spare; that's probably because with this method, I went from reading the passage in 4 minutes to reading it in under 3 minutes. That is a huge accomplishment if you're like me and also want to make the RC section illegal for mental health reasons. I still got -5 wrong, but that's at least some improvement, and I mostly got them wrong due to my lack of reading the answer choices correctly, not because I didn't understand the passage. I pray and hope this method works for some people because RC can be a major pain and sometimes the average methods just don't work. So here's something new. LMK if it works!

This post is two-fold: I am looking for both a RC study partner and a tutor. The reason I am looking for both is ideally, I'd like a good study partner because I've found that studying with a person with a real stake in this exam is just different from studying with someone who is already finished but I am also trying to be realistic because it's exceedingly difficult to find someone who is both compatible and willing to meet up on a regular basis.

My requirements are: if you are a tutor, you must be charging a reasonable rate, the tutor (or study partner) must have taken the LSAT before or be scoring 170+ on your practice exams, must be able to not only explain why correct answer is correct but why the other four are wrong, must be willing to go over the passages line-by-line. NO manhattan prep or powerscore, lsathacks, or other online explanations during the session.

And of course, I expect basic honesty about your capabilities, whether you be a tutor or a potential study partner.

I am currently getting on average -4 to -5 on RC and I need to cut that in half. Please be understanding of my request and read it all before messaging me. This is not my first time looking for a tutor/study partner and I've had my share of crappy experiences. I need someone compatible with my needs and who has a real stake in this exam so we can hopefully work to pull each other up. I can understand if you're scoring -1 or -2 that you might be a bit averse to studying with someone scoring lower than yourself but explaining your thought process to someone might help you further master the material and I've heard from several that I ask really good questions so that might get you to think about the passages differently, which could make all the difference in the world.

Message me privately

I understand why AC (A) is the correct answer because it is the best suited. However, is it really an assumption the argument depends on because if you utilise JY's negation method, you can get this:

Say, there is a political debt she owes to somebody longer than Lee & it can be as suitably repaid by appointing them to the Head of the Arts Commission, couldn't it be the case at the exact same time another job became vacant that was better suited to this unnamed individual (the individual Mayor Drabble had a longer standing political debt to). Therefore, allowing Lee to be appointed to the Head of the Arts Commission and fulfilling her longer standing political debt as soon as possible.

I am not sure if the slight flaw in the logic is due to it being an older LSAT so not as logically rigorous or I am missing something?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

#Help.

Anyone interested in doing a small group session to discuss the appropriate method of reasoning for certain LR questions? I know I have quite a few that I'm not confident about which one it is. Happy to use my examples as an "agenda" or have each person bring a few examples they'd like to work through.

I'm between 0 and - 2

PM me if you're interested!

so the august test is going back to 4 sections (one being unsecured correct?) so it would be just 3 scored sections (1LR 1RC 1LG) correct? so it would be beneficial to score practice test w just three sections instead of 4 right?

Quick question––will the 4th unscored section for the LSAT be one of the two LR sections? Or can it be any one of the three section types?

I thought the argument was a causal conclusion because of “increases.” Since the argument goes from correlation to causation, isn’t one of the assumptions that there is a causal relationship between watching TV and obesity among North-American school children? What effect does answer choice B have on the argument?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-39-section-4-question-04/

I don't understand why D is incorrect. So we are trying to explain why these canaries go through this yearly process of losing their neurons and then replacing them with new ones and the author claims that it's so that these canary brains don't get so huge that they can't fly so doesn't D provide a scenario where these canaries don't need to go through this process and can still fly due to "better developed muscles?"

And does this whole neuron regenerating process apply to all canaries or only some of them?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-13-section-3-passage-1-questions/

First time LSAT taker and I am wondering when I can choose the time for my test. I have chosen the day on LSAC already, but not the time.

What is your strategy for determining when and when not to translate into logic while answering a Sufficient Assumption question?

Do you prefer to read the stimulus through and then translate to logic? Or do you prefer to translate into logic as you read through the stimulus?

The former is easier for me but it takes up too much time compared to the latter, which makes me loose my understanding of the stimulus.

I need a more time efficient method to deploy for this q-stem category.

Any suggestions, tips or practice habits/methods would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks]!!

#HELP

I recall seeing in the CC that "IS" is a conditionality signifier (necessary). However, is that the case all the time? Is "IS" a biconditional when it's just something like "The number 5 is hot ?

I am studying for the LSAT full-time. I saw on one of the YouTube videos posted by a Korean-American HLS student that reading the Economist was helpful for him to hone his RC skills. I tried reading the Economist but it doesn’t relate to my current standing in the world, specifically in South Korea as a tutor. I am looking to read books and papers such as Federalist, Declaration of Independence, Democracy in America, Leviathan, Politics, Prince, Republic, Two Treaties of Government, Utilitarianism, Writings of Thomas Paine. These works are written by famous thinkers such as Thomas Jefferson, Tocqueville, Hobbes, Aristotle, Machiavelli, Plato, Locke, Mill, and Paine. I was just wondering to what extent reading these works would be helpful on my end to hone the RC part.

Thanks,

Ken

Could someone please #help explain or point me to a discussion thread that shows you how to properly use the tracking feature. I've been drilling logic games and I don't think I'm using it correctly, but it it seems to be a great tool for working on improving timing. New to 7-Sage so I haven't played around with it too much. Any #help would be much appreciated. Thanks guys!

Why would the program care about if they have "serious problems" when they said they needed to focus on building competence just to stay on air. B sounds too vague to me

Hi everyone,

I was wondering for the online LSAT exams where & how do you write out the Logic Games? Like game board, pieces, rules, sub game boards, etc.

Took an online practice test but the Logic Games section didn't seem to have any tools to free write. Only saw tools for highlighting & underlining the existing text.

Please help. Thank you.

Hi Sagers! I'm looking to nail LG for my exam in October. I'm at a point where I can usually score between -3 to -5 but want to get that down to -1/-2 consistently. I have been watching the demo's of 7Sagers perform on a game while JY critiques and noticed how clean their diagram is + how they thoughtfully approach each rule.

I feel I am getting a bit overconfident and sloppy with my setups and could learn from a higher scorer. I'd love to start a thread for tips from high scorers on strategies you implemented that changed LG for you. Could be as simple as writing neatly and clearly, or more complex. All tips welcomed!

On a side note - I am experiencing a superficial difficulty when seeing a 'new' logic game from a section I haven't taken before, it tends to freak me out... Any tips on how to get over this? Maybe I just need to practice more new games?

Do you guys drill a problem game 10 times to ingrain it in your mind?? I heard it works really well but I can't seem to motivate myself to do one more than 5 times :/ any tips to push pass this?

I've been drilling LR questions for my weak spots for a while now. And I certainly think I am getting better at them. Yesterday I did a set of Weaken questions, which used to be a huge weak spot, but I got nearly all of them right. I was very happy about that.

The only thing that concerned me was that I took a pretty long time on the set of questions, sometime 5 minutes on each question. There was no actual rush as I was more focused on my mechanics and that I actually did the questions well. But a lot of the time was spent because there was maybe 1-2 answers that I could not rule out and I kept try to reason why they wouldn't be the case.

My question is this - if doing these questions timed, do you ever feel ultra-confident with your answer on harder LR questions before you move on? My gut instinct usually tells me why I feel drawn to a specific answer (and usually its the right one) but I can't rule out other answers as quickly as I like. But under timed conditions, you got to move and it all happens so fast.

What are people's thoughts on this? Is this a bad thing or does timed pressure mean you proceed forward with something less than 100% certainty?