Hello comrades in misery! My name is Joey and I've been studying for the LSAT for over a year now. I've managed to score consistently in the mid-160's, but haven't been able to get close enough to 170 to feel comfortable going into the exam in a few weeks.

Brief rundown of my skill progression: I legitimately could not do logic games, timed or untimed, to save my life until a few months ago. I studied for most of 2020 and quickly realized LR and RC were my strong suits; I was always -2 or -3 on LR and -1 or -2 on RC. The games, however, were impossible (-10 to -15). Toward the end of 2020 I decided to completely take a break from studying for 4 months. Upon returning to studying, I became near perfect in Logic Games! Finally, I thought, that elusive 170+ was in reach... but that was not the case. In the time I took off from studying and the extra time upon returning devoted to LG, my LR skills significantly atrophied. I've been scoring consistently -4 to -8 on both LR sections of PTs for the last month and a half, and its been the most soul-crushing experience trying to figure out why what appeared to be a natural aptitude for me (and certainly is; I'm a bookworm and political theory major who gets unusually excited by a well-crafted sentence) has become the main thing stopping me from getting to where I need to be.

SO, AT MY ROPE'S END, I'M CALLING UPON THE COMMUNITY HERE FOR HELP. IF ANY 170+ SCORERS (OR EVEN VERY HIGH 160'S) WITH A PARTICULAR STRENGTH IN LR IS WILLING AND ABLE TO OFFER TWO TO THREE HOURS A WEEK BEFORE THE NOVEMBER TEST TO HELP A GUY OUT, I AM WILLING TO COMPENSATE YOU FOR YOUR TIME (WE CAN DISCUSS WHAT IS ACCEPTABLE PRIVATELY)

Being a lawyer is an ambition of mine for intellectual reasons, but also for personal and familial ones. A little help- even to see how one of you thinks, how you approach specific question types- just might be the key to helping me get where I need to be to realize my goals. As a quick remedy, if anybody has any FLAW question strategies, drop 'em in the comments!

Much love to you all (and sorry for the long note),

Joey R.

Title says it all.

Sorry to be a Debby downer, but I keep coming back to this game section and constantly freeze (especially with game 1)

I won't give up and will keep coming back to it in case LSAC decides to go to the archives for their next test

Hey 7Sagers,

Here's the official October 2021 LSAT Discussion Thread.

REMINDER: Under your Candidate Agreement, you may not discuss the details of any specific LSAT questions at any time. For the October LSAT, general discussion of what sections you had, or how difficult you found a given section, or speculation about which sections were scored or unscored, is prohibited until after 9pm ET, Thursday, October 14, 2021.

Posts that violate these rules will be taken down and may result in disciplinary action from LSAC. Let’s work together to ensure the test is fair to everyone, and not share information before everyone has taken the test.

**Please keep all discussions of the October 2021 LSAT here!**(/red)

Update: October 15, 2021

Rules:

✅ You can identify experimental sections. 🙆‍♀️

You can say things such as the following:

❌ You can't discuss specific questions. 🙅‍♂️

You CANNOT say things such as the following:

I am having problem with Logical Games, do anyone wants to get together to attack this part of the test.

Another recent RC question where I feel like there's something I'm just not getting about RC. (D) seems well-supported to me: if forced to liquidate, a bankrupt company will only pay its lenders, and through a fire sale/liquidation. With the reorganization system, the business restructures, in a way that should allow them to pay off more than just their lenders, but other stakeholders as well.

With (E), "finance the establishment of a new business," I get that it's vaguely supported by the notion that lenders may charge more if reorganization is the system rather than liquidation, but this seems like a needle-in-a-haystack inference and I'm still not seeing what makes it any better than (D).

Taking the LSAT on Tuesday and I swear RC will be the death of me. I'll get -0 LG and -0 or -1 LR and then bomb -3 or -4 RC and have to retake. Unless you wise people can help, lol.

I feel like there are a lot more recent-test RC questions that have me scratching my head. I understand the LSAT writers are extremely skilled and make their questions bulletproof from challenges/ambiguity, but I cannot for the life of me figure out how (A) is better than (D), or how (A) is supported in any way.

The notion of the crop geneticists being "too willing to further intense efforts to maximize the land's agricultural output" just makes no sense to me in the context of the passage. All the author basically says is they've tended to focus their research and thinking on the North American varieties, and then notes that the North American methods seek to "maximize the land's output for economic reasons." If there were an article about how some scientists have tended to focus their research and thinking around GMOs, could it be reasonably inferred that the author of such a passage would agree that the researchers are "too willing to further GMOs"? It makes absolutely no sense to me. (D) on the other hand, makes a lot of sense to me because it seems natural and supportable, based on the lines around "crop geneticists," that the author would agree that the reason the geneticists have taken an interest in the heirloom crops is the fact that they can maximize yield.

I love the old RC tests because I could get -0 relatively easily: just stay focused, understand the structure, know where the key info is located, and find the pertinent lines that support the correct answer for each question. On recent RCs I'm consistently getting -2 to -3 and I feel like there's something I'm just not getting but I don't know what that is.

Help?

I have no idea what C is trying to say, and no clue how can C be the answer that provides an alternative explanation to why the scientists are discrediting Smith. Can someone give an explanation? Thanks

#help

The rule is "Either P is an ingredient or Y is an ingredient, but not both." It's easy enough to see that both of them cannot be in, but does this rule mandate that AT LEAST one of them is in? If so, can you also point me to the lecture in the core curriculum where this is explained?

Thanks so much

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-89-section-1-game-2/

What the title says. I've been studying for the LSAT for a while now, and frankly LR is the only section that seems to utterly piss me off. I can do analytical reasoning and reading comprehension just fine (the only time I get mad on those is when the highlighter feature is being overly-sensitive, but I've learned how it works) but when I do the games, I flat out want to scream and throw things when things stop making sense.

I'm not really someone who deals with anxiety on the LSAT as I often hear others have. For me, it's frustration and anger. I took the August LSAT and I nearly blew a gasket in the middle of the logic games sections.

I think I need to study more, get the fundamentals down more, and overall just expose myself to more difficult problems with a cool mindset. This is really holding me back. I was going to take a practice test today but decided against it so I could focus more on the games in a casual setting without the timer.

Any advice? This test is a challenge of our patience, too, as you all know. Thanks.

I was one of the people whose exam begun and then crashed afterwards in the middle of it.

If you haven't yet:

Submit an Official Compliant ("connectivity issues AND press cancel score, NOT keep score)

Give a brief description

Submit

They will contact you in 2 to 3 days about rescheduling. She also said after you can contact proctoru to schedule tomorrow or Tuesday if slots are available. Regardless, the scores will be out by October 27 either way!!!

She had also said that the 21st is def one of the days for rescheduling, but they are probably gonna have more options due to the velocity of people whose test crashed during the exam. I wanted to tell you guys because I have tried emailing, calling, trying via proctoru and got not helpful response. I hope this helps you!

Lawhub shut down about 3 times during my exam. The second time I had to wait over an hour. The second time I was also doing reading comprehension so once it was back up I had to re-read the passage and lost time on the exam.

Has this happened to anyone before? Is it reasonable to ask for a refund on the test or the score be cancelled?

I am scheduled for tomorrow, but it looks like LSAC is a mess today :/. Has anyone even been able to finish the whole test without issues? Any advice for Sunday test takers?

Also sorry to everyone that has had issues with the exam, I know it must have been extremely frustrating. I hope y'all are able to get through to LSAC soon!

I’ve attempted each of these questions twice and chose the same answers each time around, B/B/A respectively. Can someone explain to me why these answer choices are wrong and the correct ones correct?

Can someone please give a breakdown of this question? I am having trouble understanding what the flaw is.

P: Tech institute has been using new exp. curriculum for several years

P: survey last year found only1/3 of the plumbing grads were able to pass certification test

C: New curriculum has lowered the quality of plumbing instruction

Anticipation: what if its entirely another cause? or maybe it was just a bad year?

I chose AC A through process of elimination but have no idea why it's wrong and why C is correct.

Thanks!

Hi there, for those who have already gone through the process - I am going through the CC in the order it is presented. I am just going through the drills untimed for now so I can understand the material. Should I supplement the CC material for Logic Games with any other book? If so, please recommend the reading material.

Once I am done with the CC for logic games, then I should full proof games from PT1-35 - Any additional steps to take to ensure better learning? - Kindly guide.

The question itself is rather easy - (D) is pretty clearly something the argument is assuming, and necessarily so. Negating it makes a mockery of the argument.

However, I did spend quite a bit of time on this one, because I've always learned that "most" answers are virtually never correct on necessary assumption questions, because negating a "most" statement just takes you from 51% (or more) to 50% (or less), so negating a "most" assumption does virtually nothing to the argument. I'm hoping someone can clarify the guidance on "most" statements on necessary assumption questions. Thanks in advance!

Hey,

So i got stuck between AC A and C, I cannot seem to understand the way A weakens the argument? and I do not see how C does not weaken the argument.

If anyone has any ideas I'd appreciate it

Thanks

So this was a very interesting question. We are asked to identify the necessary assumption in the argument of the citizens group. Citizen group argues that the mayor have more than the town's economic interest in mind. Why? the citizens give the answer that the mayor didn't go with what they think is the BETTER option: building a park. Comparing to the highway, the citizens believe that the park will attract TWICE as much business.

What is the problem here? Well, how do we know that just because the mayor didn't go with what the citizens think as the best option, he's in bed with the highway construction company? There might be other concerns that the mayor considers other than just maxing out the business that plainsville can attract, such as pollution brought by making a business park by cutting down trees, land shortages, etc.. These can definitely make the highway more attractive to the mayor than the business park, leading the mayor to think the best option for the economy is the highway. More importantly, the mayor can just simply be unaware of the idea of the business park. He simply did not consider that option, and when the citizen group roasts him for it, he's like damn you're right let's build a park. The citizen group, therefore, has to assume that the mayor has considered the park, knows about its advantages over the highway, and think it is economically more ideal to build a park than to build a highway to make the conclusion that the mayor is interested in more than pure economic gain for the city.

The necessary assumption therefore should be something like: the mayor recognizes that the park is a better option for the economy and can attract more business. Exactly what answer B catches. The mayor has to accept that the park is economically a superior option to the highway. If he doesn't, he can genuinely think that the highway helps the most, with all other things considered (beyond the scope of this question.)

Let's talk about other answers:

A: This doesn't help. Simply beyond what we need to consider here. The citizen group doesn't have to assume that there is already a highway to argue that the mayor is acting sketchy. I don't even see what this answer choice is trying to do. Saying that the highway is important and we don't have it yet so we need one?

C: We don't need this. The highway not having other benefits does not affect the argument of the citizen group, and the OTHER benefits of the highway is not in the debate between citizens and the mayor. There can well be other benefits from the highway, and the park can still be twice as more beneficial.

D : No idea what tax revenue and approval have to do with the question.

E: I chose this one, thinking hey if the only way to help the economy is to build the park, and the mayor is not building the park, he must have something to hide, right? No. If this question is a strengthening question, this AC could work, but it is not required. The citizens do agree that the highway is bringing SOME economic benefits, implied by the statement that the park can bring twice as much business. Therefore, the citizens don't think that the ONLY way to help with the economy is to build a new park. They don't have to think this to be the case to reach the conclusion that the mayor has other interest in mind. Keep in mind: the citizen's argument is not that the mayor is not helping the economy at all but that he has other interests. This answer choice is too extreme for it to be necessary.

Help!!! RC is by far my WORST section. I am consistently missing -12/13 on each practice section I complete. While I am reading, I try to ask myself what each paragraph is about. Once I'm done reading and it's time to go to the questions, I realize that nothing I have read has stuck with me, forcing me to go back to the passage multiple times. I, then, consistently get multiple questions wrong based on the fact that I don't have great RC reading strategies and can't visualize or condense the information I have read into the important things I should know before going to the questions. Does anyone else have any tips on how to focus more on understanding the passage before even getting to the questions and still being in the time limit? I also have decided I'm probably going to end up skipping one passage as a whole on the exam, so I'm thinking I'll have roughly ~12 minutes on each of the other 3 passages. Any help would be soooo greatly appreciated!

I'm really struggling with this

How is A correct? Can someone provide textual support.

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

(D) is clearly correct, but I'm having trouble articulating why (C) doesn't work. Here is my articulation:

At its core I think it comes down to a necessary vs. sufficient concept. Not like "C is sufficient but not necessary" but like this: the stimulus is saying that in order to help a patient heal, the psychotherapist MUST focus on positive change in relationships. The negation of (C) would be "there are at least some patients who will not find relief by changing their relationships." BUT the stimulus wasn't saying "if the psychotherapist focuses on positive change, the patient will be helped," it was saying "focusing on positive change is necessary in order to help." So it doesn't kill the argument to say "there are some cases where positive change didn't help a patient."

Maybe that isn't as muddled as I thought but any input would be helpful. Thanks!

Can somebody clarify for me the distinction between B and E for Question 20? Aren’t the two choices basically saying the same thing? The only difference being that B specifies that both are flying their respective planes. The rule states that “no plane flies without a qualified pilot aboard,” but doesn’t indicate they need to be flying the plane. Similarly, E states that Cindy is in plane 2, therefore sufficiently satisfying the rule’s requirement. So, what’s the difference here? How do you choose between the two?

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

Explanation Video: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-3-section-1-game-4/

So I didn't have a pre-phase and felt that all the answer choices were wrong. How on earth is the correct answer supported by the stimulus? It sounds like some random reasonable statement that makes sense in a common sense sort of way, and isn't anything that needs a stimulus, let alone this one. Like I suppose if your mussels have nuclear waste in them, I wouldn't eat them but this just doesn't sound like a supported statement. It sounds more like everyday advice against eating raw chicken or rotten milk. Did anyone else feel like the same way?

I ended up picking C because its said bags of zebra mussels were "suspended" and that made me think they were floating midwater. I ended up googling photos of zebra mussels clogging pipes and apparently that's not the case. They are literally stuck to the pipes.

I recently posted this question on Reddit, however, I am not sure that the people who responded have enough experience with the test to get exactly what I am asking. So,

Would you guys recommend AGAINST (in questions which require that I analyze an argument)… First, quickly skimming/hunting for the conclusion, then quickly searching for the supporting premise or premises. As opposed to reading the stim from top to bottom?

I know that in order to anticipate the answer correctly all I need are these to things, the rest (background) just serves to slow me down or set me up for trap answers. Also, I am able to shave of a few seconds per question. However, I just started doing this and not sure if it’s a smart idea to make habit.

I am able to do this for most question types including;

strengthen

weaken

required and basic assumptions

SA/PSA

Flaw

Match flaw

What do you guys think? Do you already do this?

Thanks in advance 🙏🏽