Overall, I am not loving anything about the LSAT right now, but LG is leaving me hopeless. I'm taking the June test and have recently resumed studying after a semester filled with the effects from a family emergency, being an athlete, and taking 18 credits. RC is actually my best section right now, where I'm hovering around an average of -5. I decided to tackle LG as my next section to work on since many say it's the easiest and quickest to fix and I just do not have the time to fix LR. However, I quickly realized it was not going to come easy to me at all. I've read the discussion board, looked at forums, and even listened to the 7sage podcast for help, and while I've tried to do what many of these places suggest (practice endlessly until you recognize game types and get more comfortable) I'm not making any progress and am left in a discouraged heap at my desk. Does anyone have any advice or methods that worked for them? I'm truly at a loss and honestly feel stupid that I cannot fix what others resolve so easily. Thank you so much.

One of the "rules" that I have learned from Ellen Cassidy's loophole and just general LR practice is that we should be extremely weary of answer choices that say we "should" do something. For this specific question, I immediately picked D because it was very intuitive, but then I changed it and picked B which seems more positive than normative. My concern here is that no one said anything about what we "should" do, but rather what simply is. If the stimulus said something along the lines of "As it is our goal to improve the economy then........" I would have definitely not changed my answer. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

Hope this make sense.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-72-section-3-question-16/

Hi 7Sagers,

I am contemplating taking on a new review strategy that I have yet to see others suggest. During our BR, JY suggests that we review and intensively critique our answers for questions that we are not 100% confident in. I think I may take this a step further. I am considering opening a word document beside my answers and writing out why that answer is justified. I think this would FORCE me to review these questions in-depth, rather than idly passing by questions just so I can see my results.

Any ideas on how to refine this or create a separate strategy with similar intentions would be greatly appreciated!

EDIT: This is regarding PT4 S1 Q12 (LR question). I didn't realize that the "discuss" button makes a forum post.

I picked E because it was the only answer that made sense.

However, I don't see how it can be properly inferred from the passage. It's heavily implied, but it's not always true.

Basically, you can consider a situation where Leachate does not leak from a landfill because the landfill was not permeated by water, and thus leachate was never formed. Independently, the same landfill could exceed it's capacity to hold liquids. Maybe it's a landfill on Venus which is overflowing with molten iron, but there was no water present in the landfill to make Leachate in the first place. I realize that this is not something you can practically infer, but it does provide a logical exception to choice E and the LSAT is about finding the answer choice that has no logical exceptions.

Basically:

I wouldn't really be worried about missing this question - eventually I would settle on E as the only choice that could possibly make sense. But this question could be a huge time sink re-reading all of the other answer choices because you're positive you missed something and I'm not really sure how to avoid it.

I think my issue is that the question doesn't establish that leachate exists in all landfills, and that choice E makes a statement about all landfills, not just landfills that contain Leachate.

Am I crazy?

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

When you guys take PTs, do you take the 4 section test or the 3 section FLEX?

Can someone explain why D wouldnt weaken an argument, and C would. Thank you!

Hi All - I am signed up for the August LSAT and came across a few questions that I am hoping you guys can help answer:

Thank you :)

I think I read somewhere that you can, but not entirely sure.

Can someone explain why answer is A and not E? ####HELPPPP Thank you.

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

Can the correct answer to a main conclusion question be something that was never explicitly stated in the stimulus? For example, if the stimulus says that we must reduce the gov deficit and in order to do so we must either reduce spending or increase taxes, and then goes on to say that for political reasons we can't reduce taxes, can the correct answer be that we must reduce spending? My concern here is that even though it was not explicitly stated in the stimulus, it is pretty much the conclusion of the argument.

Thanks in advance!

Hey I am looking for an LSAT study buddy for the June LSAT!

lmk if you are interested

The deadline to request assistance with a device or location for the June 2021 LSAT-Flex is 11:59 p.m. ET, Sunday, May 16, 2021. There is no charge for this assistance. To request assistance, please complete the form in your online account. If you have already submitted a request for assistance for the June 2021 LSAT-Flex, you do not need to request it again.

Wishing everyone smooth sailing in June! ⛵~~

I would like to take the LSAT online for the August administration, but I didn't see anywhere to select that when I registered. Will they ask us later or how does it work?

Hello!!

While drilling the flaw question types, I ran into an answer choice in PT 62 that says that the author "rejects a view merely on the grounds that an inadequate argument has been made for it."

However, this was not the correct answer choice and I'm wondering if there are any example questions where I can see a passage that actually matches this flaw.

I'm just curious what this flaw would look like in actual questions.

Thanks in advance!

[I am posting on behalf of a 7Sage user. Please feel free to leave your comments below. Thank you for your help!]

Q5:

As a negation, could we say - it is possible that there are also no analogies that are most appropriate for political campaigns

SO:

"Either something else is more appropriate analogy for reporting on political campaigns than chess is

OR something else ties with chess as being the most appropriate analogy for reporting on political campaigns." PLUS

OR there are zero most appropriate analogies for reporting on political campaigns

Can we not account for "zero" in the negation here?

Link to the Quiz: https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/quiz-negation-3-answers/?ss_completed_lesson=12772

@canihazJD, @Christopherr, @jmarmaduke96 tagging you in case you can help with a response.

dont understand the stimuli or anser choice c language

I was stuck between answer choice B and E. E was really tempting because in paragraph three it says that, "in general, biochemists judged to be too ignorant of chemistry to grasp the basic process." Would really appreciate clarification about why E is incorrect. Thanks!

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

#Help

I'm not sure that I understand why C is right and E is not. It seems to me even though E is not a "good" answer because consultants advice only didn't lead to good outcomes "at first," but it's still a negative outcome based on their advice.

I can reason out C being correct by countering Mr. Blatt's claim that expert consultants make "better decisions." It just seems off to me because it reads as the consultants' own firm, not an independent business they are giving advice to.

Can anyone give stronger reasons?

I still don't understand why "the only" in answer choice B is valid. My original prephrase was "vote for L or N -> unacceptable." B says: unacceptable -> vote for L and N. It seems that B is the exact reversal of my prephrase.

I see why it is unacceptable to vote for L or N, but how does this fact make the answer choice B correct?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-26-section-3-question-23/

does anyone have a list of all the games that have rules with "unless" on them ? I thought I had found one in this discussion board but I can't seem to find it. Thank you.

nvm lol

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

Hey guys! Has anyone found a good way to print out blank passages/questions/answers to the LG sections? If not, I'm curious to know how everyone drills the LG questions over and over again -- do you write out each of the passages/q's, or screenshot them to then print out, etc? Anything you guys have found helpful in doing this is much appreciated! (Note: I realize that the LSAC doesn't allow for pdf's to be around anymore, which makes this hard.)

The stimulus opens with a question, (Is it correct for the gov't to abandon efforts to determine toxicity levels in food supply?) and the next sentence is the answer. How is the answer to that question the MC when the following sentence begins with "however"? In this context, does "however" NOT indicate a change from context to argument? "Furthermore" in the next sentence indicates an additional premise. But, I also see a complex sentence -indicated by the semicolon. Is what follows after the semicolon the main conclusion? What am I missing or reading too deeply into?

#help

In PT 13, Section 4, Question 7, when Murray says "You are wrong to make this claim", does he mean that the claim being made is wrong? It is one thing to claim that a statement is wrong( false) and another to claim that the person making it is in the wrong. For example, one can say something that is factually accurate but at an inappropriate time. This makes the the person in the wrong but has no actual relevance on the truthfulness of the statement. I think this distinction is very relevant to answering the question, though not absolutely necessary.

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

I know this is invalid reasoning, but it was one of the most popular incorrect answer choices so I'd like to see it diagrammed

Sarah's dog is not a dachshund, for he hunts very well, and most dachshunds hunt poorly.

SD---> HVW

D--m-- /HVW

C: SD---> /D