I've been struggling with Inference (Inf, InfOP, InfAP, InfAA) questions on PTs and need some advice on how to approach/how to practice them/which videos and lessons specifically may be helpful. I generally perform pretty well in RC but inferences have been really a bad area consistently. Would appreciate any advice!!

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.

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!

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/

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/

If A (driving over the speed limit) is a significant factor in most B (accidents), can I establish a causal relationship between the two?

Can I draw A ---M --> B?

#help

Thank you in advance!

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

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!

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?

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 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?

Someone please explain to me how I got this one wrong

Prep Test 28 Section 1, #24

I am having a hell of a time trying to figure out whether the first or last sentence is the conclusion. The 1st and last sentences appear to be saying exactly the same thing, to only pay attention to intrinsic qualities of the artwork.

"What is really aesthetically relevant is not what a painting symbolizes, but what it directly presents to experience because we ought to pay attention only to the intrinsic properties of a work of art and its other, extrinsic properties are irrelevant to our aesthetic interactions with it" but...it sounds just as good to me the other way around so I'm stuck.

Could someone clear this up for me? Thanks.

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

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

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]"

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'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/

If you're free on Fridays after 5pm EST and need help with LG, hit me up!

hi there,

i have a question on diagramming multiple conditionals: e.g., Q#15, section 1 of PT #63 (june 2011), choice B states, "if someone tells the same lie to two different people, then neither of those lied to is owed an apology unless both are." i know this is not the correct answer choice but i had a question as to how we'd diagram a multi-part conditional statement like this. would the correct way be:

someone tells the same lie to two different people --> (at least one owed apology --> both owed apology)? if so, what would be the contrapositive of the entire sentence? i never dealt with a conditional within a conditional so any advice you have would be greatly appreciated!

thanks in advance!

PT81.S2.Q22

Older tests actually tested logic. These new tests just rewards your ability to weed through a pile of sh!t and narrow it down to the least pile of sh!t. It's like the test writers are abusing the word "most weakens," "most support," etc...

It's like "hey, here are 5 horrible answers, choose the least horrible."

Now why would an answer about your twin justify as a weakner?

Is this some new strategy we're to expect?

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

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 can talk to anyone, so I might as well post it here. I have been stuck at 157 for the last four PTs that I've taken, and I do not know what to do. I want a minimum of 160 as my score to get into my dream school (Loyola in New Orleans). If you have any tips on how to improve RC, PLEASE SHARE THEM WITH ME. My RC is between -11 to -14, and I can't improve it; my LC is -4 to -6 and LG -4 to -7.