Question begins:

"The complex ecosystem of the North American prairie has largely been destroyed..."

I found the correct conclusion, but I got tripped up on the paraphrase. I don't see how "returning as much land as possible to an uncultivated state..." is the same or similar to the correct answer E, which states, " the devastation of the North American prairie COULD BE LARGELY REVERSED...." I don't see any reference to LARGELY. I chose A because I took it to mean if earlier North American agricultural techniques were reintroduced that would be the same / similar to as having no pesticides, machinery etc.

Can anyone show me where I went wrong?

#help

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-38-section-4-question-11/

Hello, im having trouble grasping In/out games and theory. Does anyone have any tips or what helped you get a better understanding of them? Thank you so much!

Why is E the correct answer? I said C

This is a weakening question and I was so lost. I ended up picking an answer choice that I was 90% certain was wrong just to be sure my eyes would go straight to this problem in my review

My understanding of premise/conclusion:

Conclusion- Manufacturers who wish to call their reduced-butterfat butter by the more appealing name"lite butter" should be allowed to do so

Premises- 1) The public should be encouraged to eat foods with lower butterfat content

2) The word "imitation" deters some people from purchasing a product because it connotes falsity

Am I reading too much into the "should be allowed to do so" part?

Wait...I may have just figured it out. But I'm not sure. Is E the correct answer because the label "imitation" is encouraging people to buy reduced-butterfat products? And changing the label to "lite butter" might deceive them into buying something higher in butterfat content than what they are currently buying?

#help

I have been studying for the LSAT and drilling LG for over a year and I feel confident in my ability to get -0 or -1 on LG. However, the only potential downfall is Misc games. When I encounter a section with a Misc game, I risk going -4 (though sometimes I can stay at -1 if I do the other games quickly enough).

I've read some threads on 7Sage about this, but do you think it's a good idea to just drill Misc games as much as I can now? I'll likely take the June LSAT, so I can take time over the next month to drill these. I also know that I could just keep practicing "normal" games so that I have more time if there's a Misc game, but I've never drilled Misc games and now I'm wondering if that's the obvious, optimal next step.

I have hit a plateau where I can regularly go -4 through -5 on LR and RC, but almost always go -10 through -12 on LG. The culprit seems to be grouping games. I just have trouble visualizing inferences when there are so many different scenarios. Any advice?

Why is D correct?

Someone please explain to me how I got this one wrong

I have a high accuracy rate on the LR, getting -1 or -2 but I can only get to question 18-20 and have to guess on the remaining questions. Does anyone have any tips on how to improve on this?

Hey guys,

I need help understanding this statement. There are two ways I can see it play out.

What do you guys think?

Argument 1:

"Seniority shall lapse only for the following reasons: Resignation, discharge for sufficient and just cause; and absences as a result of a disability, sickness or accident, for a period of twenty-four(24) consecutive months."

Reason 1: Resignation, discharge for sufficient and just cause;

(Quitting or being fired for a just cause)

Reason 2: and absences as a result of a disability, sickness or accident, for a period of twenty-four(24) consecutive months.

(Being out of work due to a disability, sickness or accident longer than 24 months)

Comma- a punctuation mark (,) indicating a pause between parts of a sentence. It is also used to separate items in a list and to mark the place of thousands in a large numeral.

Semi-colon- a punctuation mark (;) indicating a pause, typically between two main clauses, that is more pronounced than that indicated by a comma.

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/semicolon/

Watch this video, my point is from 1:15 – 1:35. It explains that it is a serial list which means explains that reason 1 is separate from reason 2”

Argument 2

“Seniority shall lapse only for the following reason: resignation,discharge for sufficient and just cause; and absences as a result of a disability, sickness or accident, for a period of twenty-four (24) consecutive months.”

(A)Seniority shall lapse----> (B)R, DSJC and; RD, S or A, for a period of 24 months

My argument is that “, for a period of twenty-four consecutive months” modifies the entire necessary condition. If one left for any reason stated in the necessary condition then they’re entitled to seniority as long as it’s with in 24 months.

When I first learned LR, it was my best section. 2-3 missed each time. Now I'm a year into my studies and I average 6-7 wrong. I have no idea what the hell I'm doing. Maybe I feel less confident. I initially started with Blueprint, then Loophole, now 7sage. I can't take a break because I'm taking the June test. Please help, thanks!

I am having problems with this question. How is B wrong? The author is saying these critics are wrong because they are not poets but you can be a critic and not be a poet?

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

I'm confused about B.

The passage doesn't say it's impossible for amino acids (AA) to form in a non-reducing atmosphere, it says AA do not form readily and tend to break apart when they do form in such an environment. Is this just LSAC's way of saying "impossible" in a convoluted way? Based solely on word strength ("readily" and "tend to") it seems like they leave open the possibility of it happening. It may be difficult for AA to form or even very difficult in this environment, but not explicitly impossible. Answer choice B resolves the apparent paradox by saying "yes it's difficult for AA to form in this environment and they usually break apart but you only need one molecule."

I realize that A is the credited response but I'm not really sure how A is stronger given that it requires a meteorite impact and then a bolt of lightning in the same place at around the same time since the reducing environment is temporary according to the question. I was left trying to weigh the relative likelihood of two vanishingly unlikely events.

Thanks,

Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-66-section-4-question-10/

Does the question stem "The passage is structured to lead to which one of the following conclusions?" constitute a hybrid Main Point/ MBT question? Or, is this more of a MSS type question?

#help

I've already attempted the question and watched and re-watched the video explanation and there's still a portion of answer choice B that I don't understand. I was initially skeptical of the answer once I saw "most" and I felt that the video didn't explain why this answer choice isn't problematic even with the word "most." If it had said some, I would have gone for it, but...

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

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-june-2007-section-2-question-18/

I've been doing logic games for about a month now, and overall I'm not struggling with them too much but they're definitely not my best out of the three sections. I trust that the foolproofing method must be a good way to get people's scores up, because obviously 7Sage wouldn't swear by it if it didn't work, but I'm really having a hard time wrapping my brain around it. I just don't find it useful because as soon as I've seen JY's explanation videos, I remember everything he says and all the right answers. This makes it very difficult to approach the game the next time as if I'm actually doing the game, and not just going through the motions to replicate what JY did. I just watched one of the videos where JY narrates a student going through a game in their foolproofing period, and in the game the student was not representing all the rules correctly or getting all the answers right, which makes me wonder if I should be approaching this differently because I always just do exactly what JY told us to do. I can do the games maybe twice after blind review and still feel like I'm getting a better understanding of them, but when JY says to get 10 copies of a game that just feels like it would be useless, because at that point I know the game so well that I don't even feel like I'm having to think about the right answers. It feels almost like confirmation bias? Like I already have in the back of my head what I'm looking for, so it doesn't feel like an accurate representation of what doing the games on test day will be like. Does that make sense? And if so, does anyone have any feedback or experiences to share that could help clarify this for me?

Thanks in advance!

What was the best way to see LR improvement? I started out really strong on PT's (for me) getting like -3. Now I get -5 to -8 and it is extremely frustrating. I'm trying to drill weak points, but I am kind of all over the board. Does anyone have good tips for how to see improvement (I study for 4 hours every day and am hoping there is a solution that will show results)? Thank you!!

Reading comp was my strongest section for the longest time (which is odd I know), and now I can never focus on the passages and end up getting like -6 or -7. I don't get what happened. I feel like reading comp was just something I was naturally good at. Now that I've gotten LG down to -0 or -1 (started from like -10 :O), of course reading comp acts up!! Ughhhh help- thanks guys!!

In the first sentence, does "abatement" mean "reduce" or "total elimination," like reducing to 0?

The critic uses the whole example with the rivers to conclude that using electric cars wouldn't necessarily result in total elimination of pollutants, but what if the rivers were dammed? Wouldn't that mean the proponents of the electric car can still be correct? Or would that be going beyond the stimulus?

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

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-june-2007-section-2-question-08/

I am signed up for the June LSAT and I think I really messed up. I don't feel ready for it, my logical reasoning section is all over the place. A month ago I was scoring -6 and I have been getting progressively worse, my last test was -15. I have read advice about this problem in different discussion forums already. In addition to going through some fundamental lessons. I also don't study for very long each day, maybe 3 hours max? So, I feel that maybe it's not a good idea to take a break... Although, I would be willing to do whatever it takes to fix this problem. If anyone has an advice, that would be great!

Game rule: If jays, martins, or both are in the forest, then so are harriers.

Correct way to write it: J and M -> H (basically J -> H , M -> H).

But for some reason I thought it was translated as "sufficient or" ( J or M -> H ).

Any thoughts on why it is (J and M -> H)?

HELP!! I'm writing in June but still desperately need to get my LR down. I've heard people swear by the Loophole book for where I am right now, but would I even benefit only a bit more than a month out from test day? Does it make more sense to just keep doing deep reviews of PT questions from 7sage and hope to see improvement?

Been consistently in the low 160s for the past month and though I have made progress, I struggle sometimes to be in the LR mindset. Sometimes I can focus on stimuli and use my methods for question types easily and other times i barely understand what i am reading. This has led to -4 last time on my lr to -10 yesterday on a pt. How do i get consistent and in the lr mindset when doing pts?

Thanks

I don't understand how D weakens the argument .Can someone please explain?

So I'm able to make the majority of the inferences in logic games and I'm almost always able to finish a whole section with no pacing issues. My problem is I tend to get sloppy. Either i accidentally skip a rule altogether or I'll make the tough inference only to waste it by combining it with another rule incorrectly.

I'm trying to find the best way for me to be as meticulous as possible so i don't have this issue to begin with. But in the meantime, any strategies for correcting errors midgame without it costing me the rest of the section?

I can taste the -0 but it keeps alluding me!!!