I just took the May 2020 prep test and got a 161. I am excited about this because I had not reached the160s yet and it is the most recent prep test! However, lately, I am consistently getting 11 wrong on LR. If I could just get get four or five less wrong, I would be hitting mid to upper 160's which is my target. I specifically see that I need to work on flaw, strengthen, RRE, and MSS. Any tips or strategies for these?? I am scheduled for the June test on Sunday and haven't been doing this bad in LR until recently

Can someone please explain how did we get C as correct AC. We don't have to have same totals in order to get same percentages. Why does this question requires us to make this assumption? Thank you!

Okay I had a lot of trouble with these two strengthening questions lol so to see that they are only 2/3 star difficulty is slightly concerning. I ended up getting them both right under timed and BR without understanding fully why they correct. It did throw me off during the section but I'm trying to build confidence in eliminating to get AC's right.

I'm going to include my thoughts on each AC as I'm trying to build a habit of articulating what each answer choice actually does when it interacts with the argument to build my reasoning skills (ie: strengthens, weakens, does nothing). I will include this in my rationale below and would appreciate if someone could take a once over and let me know 1) if the way I am interpreting an AC to interact with an argument is wrong (ie: if I think it does nothing but it actually strengthens) and also 2) if there is anything else you notice in my reasoning. I am really trying to hone in on reasoning skills so don't be shy to critique mine if there is something I am missing or assuming!

PTA S4 Q3

A) Neither strengthens nor weakens; so what if both F and M pit vipers have these sensors while also exhibiting aggressive and defensive behaviour? The hypothesis we are trying to supports that the sensors serve to assist in judging the SIZE and DISTANCE of predators.

B) Strengthens; okay so if pit vipers do not differ in their predatory behaviour from the way non-pit vipers behave (ie: they both act the same way towards prey) but they do differ markedly from non-pit vipers in their strategies of defence against predators; then this would strengthen the claim that the pits assist the viper. Ie: sort of like an experiment, take one with pits and one without pits and see how they act in terms of defending themselves from predators.

C) Neither strengthens nor weakens; this seems totally irrelevant, distinguishing pit vipers based on their pits and other chemical features in no way strengthens the hypothesis about how the pit vipers use pits primarily defend themselves in specific ways.

D) Neither strengthens nor weakens; okay but this still doesn't indicate how they use the pits and if the hypothesis is correct? How can anything supplementary help us when aren't sure about the hypothesis.

E) Neither strengthens nor weakens; at first glance I thought that since this indicates they do have predators it could help, but it's just about another defence mechanism and it still doesn't strengthen, in any way, the hypothesis that the infrared sensors serve a specific purpose (which is to judge the size and distance of predators).

I thought this one was a little tricky because if you don't stay clear on what the hypothesis is, it's a little easy to get lost.

PTA S4 Q5

A) Strengthens; Okay so if official persecutions were preceded by propaganda campaigns in order to vilify the groups being persecuted - this seems to indicate that they were not taken on reluctantly and that it was not their only goal to soothe popular unrest? Because why would they have this propaganda with a distinct purpose if otherwise?

B) Does nothing; The opposing view is geared towards being reluctantly persecuted AND a single purpose of persecution for various minority groups, this seems to miss the point there in terms of the direction for the purpose of persecution and how it reluctantly/not it was carried out. I think it is trying to dispute the fact that various groups were persecuted by telling us that 'they were protected', but either way I don't know anything about protection of official institutions and it doesnt seem fair to assume that because they 'often' existed under direct protection that they couldn't still be persecuted - how strong was this protection? did it stop them from physical harm?

C) Does nothing but if anything weakens (?); okay so this says that SOME groups of people accused of witch craft were victims of mob violence (indicating the hostility) and that they were also occasionally officially persecuted (this seems to cover the soothing popular unrest). But either way I don't know how strong SOME is in terms of this group in order to strengthen the opposing claim, the conclusion is about 'various minority groups' not some or one. Either way, it definitely does not strengthen the argument that the scholar's belief is questionable, I just wanted to analyze what it was doing in terms of the whole stimulus.

D) Does nothing; this seems irrelevant, many leaders didn't authorize spread of information that misrepresented religious practices? So what? How does that tell us anything about why the first belief is questionable.

E) Does nothing; this is about convicted felons being excluded and that being a form of persecution. I don't know what kind of society this is but assuming that convicted felons count as a minority group, the conclusion we are trying to dispute is about VARIOUS minority groups, not solely being persecuted, but how the persecutions were taken on reluctantly and with only one goal in mind.

Thank you for anyone who took the time to read my analysis and I hope there are some valuable points in there! Please don't hesitate to correct me on anything if you see any errors.

Hi, I'm curious about people's strategies with author's attitude questions. I pretty much consistently get these wrong even though they seem like the easiest questions. I am always able to rule out the positive/negative answer choices but am usually choosing between two. If I'm reading a passage where the author clearly does not believe a theory and thinks it's unsupported, choosing between "cautious skepticism" and "vehement opposition" is almost impossible. Please help!

How is D right?

The hotel being at 100% capacity seems to be the right answer to me as if the hotel is at 100% capacity no amount of decorations can better this number. Upgrading the decor, and thereby price, would have an ambiguous impact on % of the hotel occupied and the profits generated.

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

Hey Sagers,

I just wanted to know if y'all practice just 4-5 star games on the side? Normally I do full sections of LG everyday. I normally go -1 or -2 but the only games that give me difficulty are those harder games. After finishing a whole section and BR do you ever just do games of harder difficulty? I feel that if I drill those difficult games it will better prepare me for new PT's or new LG sections.

What are your approaches to games besides obviously just drilling?

Hi everyone,

So I recently got an email from LSAC saying I need to schedule my June Flex test, when I basically did so as soon as the option popped up on ProctorU back on the 3rd. I was wondering if anyone else was in this situation. Should I just ignore the email? Thanks.

I feel solid with LG, can always be better with LR, but oh my, RC has me. For the life of me, I cannot seem to fix my timing issues. Every time I PT or drill, I try to force myself to go faster, and I always have far too many questions left. I cannot seem to finish this damn section on-time, or anything close to on-time. Does anyone have any tips or past eureka moments where they finally found themselves at least getting close to finishing RC on time? Any help - really anything - would be appreciated.

I've been taking practice exams on the 7Sage platform but I am wondering what the LSAT Flex actually looks like? Will we be able to highlight, underline, etc? If you've taking the flex exam already please let me know!

It appears in the core curriculum it's taught there is no distinction between main point and main conclusion questions, i.e when a question asks "whats the main point" or "whats the conclusion." However, I find the "main point" questions will be a lot more general and doesn't strictly adhere to "summarize the one sentence that is the conclusion" in this argument. Am I misunderstanding the core curriculum? Does anyone agree with this observation?

3 days!!

Does anyone know how many sheets of paper we are allowed on test day? Also, what can we have on our desk during the test? Any help would be appreciated!

I'm looking to take one more PT tomorrow morning before I take the test this weekend. Any suggestions as to which LSAT would be best to get a sense of where I'm at/get that last practice in? Thanks!

Can someone please explain how the answer in PT 15 S2 Q08 in logical reasoning is answer A and not C? I'm confused on this one.

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

Hey all - taking the June Flex and I've noticed in the last few weeks that I have gone from regularly -1/-3 on LG to -5/-7. As test time gets closer, I'm making a lot of really dumb mistakes, getting angry, missing key inferences. Even problem sets that I have already done before, I am now missing questions on. Whenever I think about LG I now get this pit in my stomach. I would welcome any advice to get this train back on track, and thank you!

PT 47 Section 1 Question 19

In the stem it talks about a case of polio occurring due to the administration of a vaccine of 12 per year. By doing an alt vaccine, it gets cut into half 6

We need to weaken this

The correct answer is that the alt would cause for some new polio to occur.

MY ISSUE

Some means 1 - infinite; if the some of the new polio is 2, then it's obvious to take the alt. If it is 50, then it sucks

But what should we assume

Admin note: Edited title. Please use the format "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-47-section-1-question-19/

Hi everyone,

This weekend will be my first time taking the LSAT and I am unfamiliar with the logistics of the writing sample. Do we have to take it the same day? Do we have to take it in one sitting? When is the earliest/latest we are allowed to take it? Do law schools factor the writing sample into their decision making process?!

Please advise!!! TYIA

I've been going through my prep tests, and I get absolutely destroyed by those final questions. Up to that point I'm usually between -0 to -3. What's a useful strategy?

This is a really unusual question and took a long time to come up with this reasoning. Any feedback on my reasoning would be appreciated.

Context: There is a new law which will take effect soon and gives the patients legal rights to see their medical records. Doctor’s opines as the following:

Doctor’s Conclusion: patients should not have a legal right to see their medical records.

Reason 1: it will significantly reduce the amount of time that staff can spend on more important duties thus it is time wasting.

Reason 2: No patients will ask for it anyway, based on his experience so far.

Now, reason 1 is not even necessary to mention because reason 2 cancels out; if no patient will ask for it, whether it takes time to retrieve and return files doesn’t matter. They will not be time spent on that task anyway. Now the task is to find one answer choice that will make reason 2 not cancel out the reason 1. In other words, find a scenario in which even if no one asks for the files, it will still be a waste of time as a result of the new law.

(A) Correct. If the new law will require the doctors to be ready to produce records immediately each time they see patients, then reason 1 matters, even if no one asks for it. So with this new law, the reason 2 does not cancel out reason 1.

(B) Wrong. Even if the task of retrieving and returning files fall to the lowest-paid member of the office, if no one will be asking for it, it doesn’t matter how much time it takes to handle the files. Reason 1 is cancelled out by reason 2.

(C) Wrong. Even if this is true that patients will require more time for explanation of their records, reason 1 is still not a good reason if no one will ask for the records. Thus reason 1 is cancelled out by reason 2.

(D) Wrong. If they can get extra payment for the staff to handle the records, it will not be a waste of time so in this scenario, reason 1 is cancelled out even more so.

(E) Wrong. This is no different from what stimulus suggests. If no one asks for the records, reason 1 doesn’t matter. Reason 1 is cancelled out by reason 2.

Hello, I hope everyone is doing well! I am having a little bit of an issue identifying principles vs conclusions when asked to identify certain aspects of the argument. I keep overanalyzing whether it is a principle or the overall conclusion, I am wondering if anyone has this problem as well?

I just did the May 2020 Flex LSAT as practice and noticed the RC passages are significantly more verbose than the earlier exams. My reading time is close to 3.5 minutes usually but I am noticing I took a longer time to read these. Did anyone else feel like this threw them off? How can I combat this in time for my June test?

I couldn't understand why I got this wrong until I started writing this, so I figured I'd publish just in case it helps others.

Decrease in revenues > Prices risen beyond what people can afford > Salaries not kept pace.

Contrapositive: Salaries kept pace > Prices do not rise beyond level people can afford > No decrease in revenue

Question: If salaries have kept pace during last year, what MBT?

(B) Incorrect: Retail stores will not experience a drop in retail sales this holiday season

(C) Correct: Prices in retail stores have not risen beyond the level that most people can afford during this holiday season.

Hi all, quick question!

In the Harder MBT Questions unit, JY covers two questions that involve the negation of embedded conditionals. I'm a little confused on the negations, and was hoping someone had some insight.

PT 33 S1 Q11:

A --> B

NOT (A -->B) which becomes:

A some /B

PT 30 S2 Q20:

(A -->B) --> /C

C --> NOT (A-->B) which becomes:

C --> A and /B

Does anyone understand why the negation of (A-->B) in one problem resulted in a some statement, while in another problem resulted in an and statement? Thank you!

A couple months ago, I was getting somewhere between minus 3-7 per RC section and now I've seemingly lost my groove as I've been getting minus 10+ on more than a few occasions. Has anyone else experienced this? Tips/advice?

I started out with a 154 diagnostic and with my last PT, improved to 167. Although this is a great PT and could certainly be an outlier, the one thing that remains constant is my RC score. I have NEVER been able to reduce my incorrect ACs below -6. On the 167 PT, I got -7. I am curious if there are any other high scorers who had originally had this issue and were able to resolve it. Any advice?