Hi everyone,

I am late to the game and I am using this summer to tackle studying for the LSAT, and taking the August exam.

I know this is an overly ambitious plan of attack but sadly I do not have many other options.

That being said, does anyone have any tips or advice on how I should approach this?? I am not sure if I am better off trying to complete all of the foundational material and lessons, or skipping around or what.

I do not have enough time to complete all 900+ hours of the program before August, so that being said any suggestions are greatly appreciated.

As of now, I am getting through the foundations and then going to begin incorporating the practice tests and such starting mid June, and then from there out switch between the foundation and practice. Not sure if this is the best approach though.

Thank you ! And Goodluck to everyone !

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.

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?

J.Y. Ping said:

(1) All bananas are made of atoms. [B–>A]

(2) All non-bananas are made of atoms. [/B–>A]

(1) and (2) are consistent with each other.

The contradiction (must be false statement) to (1) would be some bananas are not made of atoms. [B some /A]

HERE Where I AM CONFUSED!!!

But contradiction of all (B are A) is (not A not B) , hence (A is not B) is acceptable since we are failing sufficient only, but contrapositive of that is (B is not A) so we can say (B is not A) hence some bananas are not made of atoms. Please help someone.

Can someone explain what claim does AC E imply? Is "claim stated earlier" is subsidiary conclusion (1st sentence), or "since dog breeders try to maintain.....) Thank you!

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

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!

Could someone please explain why the answer is C and not D. Thank you!

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

[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.

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!

To attack the premise or not to attack the premise

I keep hearing over and over again that I'm not supposed to attack the premise but this question from the weakening portion of LR seems to do just that. Doesn't answer choice D attack the premise? If the argument concludes that it couldn't be the case that the cave paintings depicted the current diets of the painters since they must have needed to eat sea animals during the long journey there, wouldn't D attack that premise since it's saying maybe not?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-33-section-1-question-20/

Hello everyone,

I am posting this in LR because LR is something very new and foreign to me and I feel that if I can master LR, RC is going to be a breeze. Now, I know the answer off the bat is going to be "do what feels best for you," focus, and discipline. I completely agree with that sentiment, yet I wanted to see what has worked best for you and why with the entire goal of inspiring others to learn and add new tidbits into their current strategy.

If you do chunking, how many words do you chunk when you read and why does that work for you?

For those of you who don't chunk what works best in your strategy and why?

I have realized that for myself, that I had developed very bad reading habits after leaving college, I've been out a good while so I skim a lot and hardly read as much as I used to. For now, I have gone back to "word by word" reading until I can spot important words while chunking. My goal is to chunk 3-4 words as I read.

Currently, I time out towards question 4/5 leaving me rushing to just pick an answer and pray I got it right. Slowly, I have gone from getting 1 answer right to 3/5 on a good day until I get to the level 4-5 difficulty level questions and then I get 1 or 2 right if I am lucky enough to figure it out, but then time out for questions 3,4,&5.

Looking forward to reading your story.

Thank you for your time,

Alfonso

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 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/

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?

Now I know the opposite of some is none and the opposite of some .. not is all. What about the opposite of most and most .. not? I can see the opposite of most would be at most half, how about most .. not? Thanks!

Random question, I was told by an LSAT tutor that you can use control F on the actual LSAT in reading comprehension to help find a phrase or word. Is that true?

Can someone break this down in terms of approaching a stimulus.

For some reason I get these kind of questions correct. Even on the hardest LR questions, I'll resort to POE and somehow get it right. How? I don't know. They are extremely confusing in approaching a stimulus. Thanks.

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.

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.)

nvm lol

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

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"

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