Hi Everyone, I am getting every other question type correct on LR except the ones above. This ranges from 5-8 Questions I miss per LR section and I am missing 2-3 on RC that are also MBT or some variation. I am only missing these questions and they are holding me back from a higher score. I am begging for any tips or YouTube videos on these question types. Thank you!

Anyone interested in a study buddy for June's exam? I really just need someone talk to who's also wanting to do well on this LSAT for support, commiserate, motivation, etc. We could do groupme or really anything.

Hello, so I was working through the conditional logic translation quizzes and came across this sentence: "Businesses do the environmentally "right" thing only if doing so makes good business sense."

I recognized that "only if" is in group 2, and makes what is after it a Necessary condition. What tripped me up is that I thought "doing so" was a referential phrase to "environmentally "right" thing." Thus, I thought that "only if" was directly working on "doing the environmentally right thing." So my lawgic translation was Good business sense --> Environmentally right thing.

However, this is wrong. It should be Environmentally Right Thing --> Good Business Sense

Why should the referential phrase of "doing so" stay as a necessary condition and not be expanded to "environmentally right thing" making "makes good business sense" the sufficient condition?

Proposals for extending the United States school year to bring it more in line with its European and Japanese counterparts are often met with the objection that curtailing the schools' three month summer vacation would violate an established United States tradition dating from the nineteenth century. However, this objection misses its mark. True, in the nineteenth century the majority of schools closed for three months every summer, but only because they were in rural areas where successful harvests depended on children's labor. If any policy could be justified by those appeals to tradition, it would be the policy of determining the length of the school year according to the needs of the economy.

That bold and italicized sentence is what I think is the main conclusion. And the rest that follows it are the premises, but I don't understand why the author of this stimulus think the objections are "missing their mark." If someone could respond, that would be great.

I'm trying to book a hotel for the June 2021 test, but LSAC still has TBD on the actual test date. The only info I see is "starting June 12". Does anyone know how soon LSAC releases the actual date before the test? Thanks!

Does anyone have any tips to improve Reading Comprehension Accuracy? Reading Comp was my best section when I used to practice on paper because I could highlight and write marginal notes, but recently it has become my worst section. I have no issues with timing. I am 6 points away from my goal score and I know that if I improve this section it would greatly help. Any advice would be appreciated.

I was stuck between A, B, and C lol

Someone please save me. I chose A because the author is assuming that freedom is worth more than anything else, even more than your life and I feel like A is catching onto to that by saying there could be other things of higher value (like your life in this situation) and the other can't just say 1 thing is paramount at the expense of everything else. Flaw Q are my worst in LR.

Thanks 7Sage!

Aren't there two main ways to weaken an argument? Either by going for the premises (contradicting them) or showing why the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from them? I thought C did the first, but now I am having doubts. The stimulus concludes that oil rigs have no adverse (or harmful) effect on wildlife because when the areas near oil rigs and control sites several miles away were compared, no significant differences were found. When C mentions there was "contamination from sewage and industrial effluent," could I assume those pollutants came from the oil rigs or not? And does this choice contradict the premise that there were differences between the sites near the oil rigs and control?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-18-section-2-question-06/

I took the April Flex and have took over 15 PTs and numerous problem sets. I am still missing -8 to -13 per RC section. I have tried the low res and high res method which I believe slows me down. What can I do to bridge this gap?

I have read the explanation on this question and am still having trouble.

P1: Sometimes a reader believes that a poem is expressing contradictory ideas

P2: No one ever means to communicate contradictory ideas

Conc: Meaning does not equal author's intention

I understood that the assumption rested somewhere in the fact that what the reader understood is not necessarily what the author intended to communicate.

However, the answer choice linked what the reader understood to the meaning of the poem. Even if it is true that what the reader believes is in fact the meaning of the poem, that would mean that the poem is contradictory. Because no one, including the author means to express contradictory ideas, wouldn't you only be able to conclude that the author didn't mean to express contradictory ideas? How can you conclude that meaning is not the same as the authors intention (it never says that meaning can't be contradictory, only that people don't intend to communicate contradictory ideas... what if they did by accident?)

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-57-section-2-question-24/

Hello everyone,

Probably like most of you i have spent the least amount of time studying in RC. I am embarrassed to admit that after a few blind review practice tests my average is -18. I have tried reading for structure like most explanation videos encourage to do but still hasn't helped much. Quite frankly I rarely understand what the hell i'm reading even when i take 6-8 minutes reading the prompt. I'm obviously completely misunderstanding this section of the test and am hoping someone can point me in the right direction as to where to go from this point. I would love to improve at least 10 points ASAP

If an individual only has two choices available, for example green and purple, that could be diagrammed as /G—-> P but is that the same as the “either or rule” from logic games? The idea that at least one of these options had to be in the game? Or am I getting the two conflated?

Hi, so I need some advice on how to improve my RC score. I have extra time on the test (1.5x) so timing is not the issue. It is more that I have trouble eliminating answer choices, especially when I have it narrowed down to 2 answers. Any advice about this, or reading the actual passage, would help greatly. Thanks!!! #help

Question link below:

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-42-section-4-question-01/

All on board with the clearly strengthening correct A/C here, but I was wondering about a hypothetical alternative and the role of Drs group 1.

In this Q, could an answer choice that merely shows that there aren't other negative effects that come about as a result of leaving B as it is in the NB ever serve to strengthen the 2nd Drs' argument? I'd think that "no effect" would not be reason enough to support allowing B to remain high, even though it may not hurt the NB or the 2nd Drs' ARG either. So do you think it's correct to say that any A/C for this Q would need to show some sort of benefit of leaving B levels high and not merely be inert?

Does the argument by the first group of Drs mentioned have any impact on the second group of Drs' ARG other than to serve as a point of contrast/reference?

Thanks!

Knowing things like how to map no/nobody and unless and stuff like that. Is it enough for tough coniditonal lr quesitons? If not then how do you do them better?

I've been studying LSAT for almost a year. Three months last summer till I burn out, and then December till right now. My reading comprehension has improved, but only to a certain extent. In the past three months, no matter what RC section I chose, I constantly got 8 to 9 wrong. I've tried everything. I did a detail review, I looked up all of the explanations I can find online, I write out detailed explanations for the questions I got wrong, but still, there's no improvement. I notice that I'm still having a hard time, being super clear on the structure, capturing the details, and distinguish the "important" from the non-important ones. Not gonna lie, this is so discouraging and it's really been taking a toll on my mental health. I'm discouraged, but do not intend to give up. I'm willing to do anything to nail this section. Any suggestions or encouraging words would be greatly appreciated.

This is a weakening question so my goal is to cast doubt on T's conclusion that the footprints were made by hominids

The evidence R has against T's conclusion is that in order for the footprints they both observed at site G to be made by hominids, they would have had to have walked in a cross-stepping manner. When I first read this , I still thought it was a possibility these footprints were still made by hominids; maybe the hypothetical hominids in question chose to walk in that odd manner or did so by accident? So I couldn't come up with a precise pre-phase but went into the choices trying to see if there was something that could strengthen R's evidence.

I get that B weakens T's conclusion because it suggests the footprints were made by a bear walking normally instead of cross walking humans, but what is wrong with C? Is C incorrect because it strengthens T's conclusion? And why is D incorrect? wouldn't it be problematic for T's conclusion if the footprints they were looking at were incomplete?

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

anticipated right answer but still got it wrong :(

Premise: there have been no nuclear wars

Conclusion: nuclear deterrence has worked

I thought there might be an alternative explanation for there not being any nuclear war so I thought A provided that answer. If nukes were expensive wouldn’t that provide an alternative explanation for why there isn’t nuclear war?

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

Hello! Curious to know what people are reading to prep for the range of passages on the RC? Specifically science, law, history type passages.

I know the New Yorker, Economist, are suggested — anything else? (E.g. Longform articles)

I cannot for the life of me understand how to arrive at the answer to this question. I mapped the biologist's reasoning as Deforestation>/Koalas, and I mapped the politician's as K>/Deforestation. So in order for the politician to be right, we must meet the sufficient condition; the only way we can know the politician is wrong is if we either have K>Deforestation or (the contrapositive being wrong) Deforestation>K. I didn't see either of these options, and indeed, the correct answer choice says /Deforestation>/Koalas, which IS the correct contrapositive (so it agrees with the politician).

Thank you!

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

Hi Everyone,

I have a decent background in Reading Comprehension and Logical Reasoning due to using other study preparation tools prior to signing up for 7Sage. I am seeking to use 7Sage to primarily learn about Logic Games.

I understand that sections of the syllabus may relate, and that there may be great value to doing the curriculum in order. However, I am wondering if there are any particular sections of the syllabus that are especially helpful for improving an understanding of Logic Games. I understand that the Logic Games sections of the syllabus are titled accordingly, but it seems as though the Logic courses are also very important for Logic Games.

To my understanding, it seems as though the following courses hold direct value to Logic Games:

"Introduction to Logic", "Advanced Logic","Introduction to Logic Games & Sequencing Games", "Sequencing Games with a Twist", "Introduction to Grouping Games: The In-Out Games", "Grouping Games", "Grouping Games with a Chart", "Grouping and Sequencing Games".

Once again, I understand that all of the content within the syllabus may benefit my understanding of Logic Games, but I am seeking to prioritize my limited time. I would like to focus on sections of the syllabus that will most impact my understanding of Logic Games.

Are there any additional sections of the syllabus, not included in those that I have listed above, that I should take into account for improving in Logic Games?

Thank you very much for all of your help!

Every time I do a timed LG session for some reason I panic and always end up solving 2 questions, but when I do the BR, it takes me less time to do the questions and it becomes very easy, I make better inferences and understand the material better. I don't know what's causing this, HELP!

Hi everybody!

Taking the June LSAT. I have a rudimentary understanding of how FLEX works but am unsure of really happens on test day.

What is the proctor/ situation like? Does your screen lag when taking the exam? Any prep tricks/ tips you guys have before my big day? Any ways to calm your nerves? What time did you start/ finish?

Really would love any/all advice. Thanks to everyone in advance!

Fiction--m-- LA

Fiction --s--Requested from writers

Nonfiction given SA/Published----> RF or Requested

I don't understand how to determine why A is incorrect...if a manuscript is unrequested, does that mean it is either a fiction book that was from a literary agent or a nonfiction book from a renown figure?

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

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-70-section-4-question-21/

I need help finding the main conclusion in this stimulus. I thought the first and last sentences were basically saying the exact same thing: that we ought to pay attention to the intrinsic properties of art. I read some explanations that involved diagramming and it just confused me further. I even tried putting the sentences back to back to see which supported which but just couldn't see it. Could someone help point out why the last sentence is the main conclusion and not the first?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-28-section-1-question-24/