For #2, we can affirm from the first paragraph that MLK was influenced by at least one work from a transcendentalist, namely MLK was influenced by David Thoreau's essay "Civil Disobedience"; the correct answer choice says as much and yet the correct answer for #7 states MLK was not at all affected by transcendentalist thought. But you can't be influenced by a transcendentalist essay (and presumably by the ideas in said essay) and then turn around and say you actually weren't impacted by transcendentalist thought. And both were talking about civil disobedience too. Isn't that a contradiction in the passage/video explanation? I was under the impression that MLK was influenced by transcendentalists, just not as much as writers previously thought.

As for answer choice C, are morality and ethics the same thing on the LSAT?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-11-section-3-passage-1-questions/

I am working through drilling RC sections and PT11 S3 Q15 has me stumped.

The question asks for the assumption which the argument relies on, which means that the assumption shouldn't be stated.

I narrowed the choices down to (A) and (C).

I ultimately chose (A) because I found (C) explicitly stated in the passage (See lines 6-10 + 15-18, line 6-10 states that the only way for species growth in the manner that occurred in the deep sea mud is for there to not have been significant changes in climate, and then starting at line 15 he states that the amazon didn't have significant changes in climate. )

I don't see how a question can ask for an assumption the argument relies on, which I read as a Necessary Assumption then have the answer be a premise stated, not assumed.

Can someone help me bridge the gap here? I am clearly missing something.

#Help

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-11-section-3-passage-3-questions/

So this particular question has about 8 years worth of comments and about as much time's worth of confusion regarding why D weakens the argument because it seems to be attacking a premise, namely the one stating that these painters have to eat sea animals on the way from Norway to these caves. My question is just how is D not just going after the premise of the argument? I thought we weren't supposed to do that but the vid explanation just accepts D as is.

The only observation I could make is that the premise isn't stating that the cave painters actually did eat animals, but that if they did make the journey from Norway to these islands, then they did have to eat sea animals. But even this principle or conditional is still a premise, so I'm still stuck. And the way the stimulus is written seems to confirm that the painters did make this journey.

As for the argument, I thought the stimulus was concluding that the rock paintings couldn't be a reflection of the painters' current diets because they didn't have sea animals (at last, none that were "unambiguously depicted") and they had to eat sea animals during the journey from N to those islands and my goal was to find answer choices that provided possible scenarios where the paintings did reflect current diets even if they didn't have sea animals on them.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-33-section-1-question-20/

Hello! I have been studying since January using 7sage and took the June LSAT and received a 162 (162-168 range on PT's). I have not studied since, and am currently enrolled for the August but thinking of pushing back to October. I finally realized and recognized that I need to pay for outside help to reach my goal score of 168-170 after having anxiety about reaching out for help. I would love to discuss a strategy with a tutor and set out a schedule for the next few months, so please message me if you want a new student! (looking for 1/2x a week).

(Side note, not sure this is the best way to get a tutor off of 7sage, but everyone on JY's podcast seemed to do it this way so thought I would give it a shot. 7sage should build in "looking for tutor" as one of the posting categories!)

Thanks everyone and happy studying!

Need help on this easy one. Stuck between C and E. Do not know why this is considered an easy one haha

Thanks 7Sage.

Hey guys - Does anyone have any general tips for Inference (author's perspective) or any inference on RC? It seems to be my weakest point and really wanted some tips on this.

Does anyone notice that on newer PTs, there have been more instances of themselves comparing answer choices in LR and asking which is the better one? (Especially with strengthen/weaken questions.) This is just something I've noticed myself doing more often on the newer PTs, whereas in the older ones, once in a while there might be a question that makes me do that, but most of the time the wrong answers have a very definitive reason as to why they're wrong.

Would love to know if this is actually a trend with how the LSAT is changing.

In arguments, we're supposed to take premises as facts and question the conclusions. But intermediate conclusions are both used as premises (to support the main conclusion) and as conclusions in and of themselves (albeit subsidiary ones).

So how would you treat them if you were trying to evaluate the validity of an argument? Is is acceptable to attack or challenge a sub-conclusion? Assume we have a weaken question-- would we ever see an instance of a correct answer attacking the causality of a sub-conclusion?

Hello folks,

I have a question about improving my LG score. I consistently get around -1 on my BR for logic games but somehow I always get 3-5 questions wrong on the actual test. Getting a good BR score does not seem to be translating into a better actual score. Does anyone have any tips for this?

Thank you!

Why does C weaken the argument if the low-income individuals aren't taxpayers? Isn't the city councilor's proposal to raise bus fares only meant to help taxpayers?

Edit: Answer choice C says "all" councilors believe that low-income people should be able to take advantage of buses. Since it says "all" of them believe that, does that mean the portion of councilors who think city taxes should be used to primarily benefit taxpayers believe that as well? Is that why C weakens?

And I thought the argument made sense at first because it looked as if it would force commuters, or non-taxpayers, to pay their fare share instead of having them continue to rely on the tax-payer funded bus fares, but the more I read it, the less the city councilor's proposal makes sense. How would raising bus fares for everyone in the city help taxpayers? Wouldn't that mean taxpayers would end up having to pay more? Was the city councillor who proposed this measure thinking that only commuters, or non-taxpayers, would have to pay for the increase in bus fares?

My expected flaw for this question was : what if CEO are not representative of top management? Top management can include (CFO, VP, director etc...)

I found many of the answer choices are quite attractive. I was between D and E... I chose E because it match my prephrase. Two questions in short: Why is E wrong and why is D right?

I am not satisfied with the answer Manhattan forum provides, the reason they said this is not a unrepresentative sample is "I will not give you a standard poll or survey and expect you personally to decide that based on your subjective opinion of what constitutes a representative sample that the poll or survey is flawed"....

So polls can never be unrepresentative??

As my question for D: "CEO's claims are reflected in actual practice", how did they go from the popular belief is unfounded to presuming CEO's claims are reflected in actual practice??

I didn't think there was a good answer...

Why is D correct? and what kind of flaw is this?

"Faden presumes, without providing justification, that the evidence for a claim has not been undermined unless that evidence has been proven false"

but I thought we are not allow to go after the truth of premise?

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

I was wondering if there is any statistic or if anyone can speak from personal experience regarding the number of questions wrong a high scorer gets in regard to logical reasoning. I understand that it can depend from person to person and that you can make up for a low logical reasoning score by getting less mistakes in the other sections. However, in average I believe that there is a certain range of logical reasoning mistakes that high scorers make!

Thank you!

Could anyone explain this to me? I'm a little lost. Thanks!

hi there! i've been seeing some folks on here talk about how they are fool proofing all the games from pt 1-35. i wanted to know if this is really recommended, as i usually only fool proof the games i am getting answers wrong in from pt 50 onwards. appreciate all of your advice

Hey everyone, i'm looking for possible advice on how to improve in LR

I've began 7sage early this year for a month and a half but had to stop due to an intense semester. But I've completed the whole CC for LR in June and I've scored well on the question sets for every question type (not extremely well on the hardest sets tho). However, when I drill LR sections (PTS 36-45) I do not do as well as I've expected to do. Currently I average -14 to -16 per 51 questions. Some problems I experience is 1- I don't understand the stimulus well (even after BR) and 2- I mismanage my time and get stuck on a question for wayyyy too long. Thus, shooting myself in the foot and ruining my chances of getting other questions right as I don't have enough time.

Now I realize that these problems are common and sound easy to overcome as I can skip those questions and focus on the ones that I understand well and can answer easily instead of wasting time. However, I want to improve drastically on this section because it's half the test and it paves a way to a higher score.

My current line of thinking is that I should focus on getting 22 questions correct (hopefully) and I should skip three to four, which would my decrease my wrong answers to 6-8. I know this is easier said than done but I've found BR to be helpful and can see myself achieving that in the following weeks.

Having said that I'd like to hear what y'all have done to improve your score in this section and what you think about my current line of thinking. Any advice would be highly appreciated. Also, if there are helpful discussion forums out there that you found helpful please link it.

Thank you

Hey folks. I always seem to struggle with the analogy questions on RC passages. Does anyone have any tips/tricks?

PT 48, S3, P2, Q9 is the latest one I've come across.

Thanks!

Help. I'm kind of having a hard time distinguishing the difference between two question types' question stems. To me, they seem to have the same question stem except PSA question stems has word "justify?" and Principle questions don't have it? Am I right to use this approach? If not, how do you guys differentiate those two? Thank you so much in adnvace!

Paragraph 1:

This mostly relates to #2

The explanation video states that evidence for answer choice E lies in lines 5-8 in the first paragraph, but how I can infer that even musicians didn't know about the London Pianoforte School? Could I infer from the content of the passage that the author is in the field of music?

#4: How could I tell that the question wants me to focus on a causal relationship?

Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-21-section-4-passage-1-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-21-section-4-passage-1-questions/

hi all! i'm struggling with overconfidence errors in RC – my range for timed RC goes from -3 to -6, and during BR, i usually only manage to catch half of the errors. today i took preptest 71, got 5 wrong in timed RC, and didn't catch any of them in BR, so i'm a bit concerned.

most of my mistakes stem from falling into trap ACs, while the others seem to be coming from, oddly enough, some level of underconfidence (?) i.e. i look at an answer, think "no way that's it," and pick another answer after overanalyzing, only to find out my initial guess was right. in any case, i finish RC with around 2-3 minutes to spare, so i think i'm having some serious issues with accuracy. i've tried using the remaining time to come back to flagged questions and review the stimulus again, but i still get them wrong. that, or the questions i get wrong aren't ones i flagged.

any advice on how to study would be appreciated; for what it's worth, i'm taking the august test. thanks so much!

edit: forgot to mention i write out VIEWSTAMP for each passage on scratchpaper, if that's helpful.

Hey ya'll, I'm consistently between -5 and -1 on LG sections while I'm PT'ing, but hitting that -0 either in drills or BR... Do you have any tips for closing the gap? How do I manifest the knowledge I knowI have from BR into the actual game? I've been foolproofing games 1-35, but any constructive tips (maybe it's time to move out of the oldest psets) would be useful! Should I be focusing on timing now?

While I have managed to reduce greatly my incorrect ACs in RC, it is still my poorest section. So far, my approach to studying for this section has been incredibly random. I have usually only found that repetition and completing many reading comprehension sections was the best remedy to improvement. If anyone has found a helpful approach to practicing and analyzing RC questions, please let me know!

I'm wondering if I should consistently be taking all 4 sections of PT's (not only for building test stamina) but because I've heard that one LR is usually harder than the other? Is this true? I've looked at the LR scores of full PT's that I've taken, and on 50% them I scored significantly better on one section than the other, but in the other 50% I scored roughly the same on either section. Does this mean some of the higher scores that I've gotten on Flex PT's have been skewed because I happened to only take the easier LR section?

Hey guys,

I'm going over the Sequencing Games w/a Twist and after studying the board set-ups I can't seem to figure out the problem sets. Some of the problem sets are Grouping + Sequencing games and I haven't even gone over that lesson yet. Is it normal that I'm confused? What can I do to get better at just simply making the boards? After I make the boards I whizz through the questions.

Hey 7Sagers,

Here's the official November 2020 LSAT-Flex Discussion Thread.

**Please keep all discussions of the November 2020 LSAT-Flex here!**(/red)

Rules:

❌ You can't discuss specific questions. 🙅‍♂️

You CANNOT say things such as the following: