Do I copy the master game board and write the rules on every logic game question?

Hi, I really struggle to see why (A) doesn't weaken the first sentence in the stimulus "Tenants who do not have to pay their own electricity bills do not have a financial incentive to conserve electricity."

I find "by paying more rent" in A somewhat ambiguous; does it mean that the rent increase as more electricity the tenants used? Or, does it mean the rent for the tenant is more than that for other tenants who need to pay for their electricity?

I thought that, for the tenants who don't need to pay rent, paying more rent is itself a financial disincentive to waste energy, and thus it is a incentive to not to waste (conserve) energy. Am I mistaken somewhere?

Could anyone help explain these two questions? Thank you very much.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-81-section-3-question-16/

Hi there,

I hope all is well.

Does anyone have any tips for Must be True questions?

@jenleeva had a good question about the first LR section of PT 39, Q12, and I'm also stumped:

"How do we know that 'not right' = 'wrong'? And vice versa? Wouldn’t 'not wrong' logically have a neutral option?

#help "

From: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-39-section-2-question-12/#comment-182531

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

What does it mean to reproduce the inferences from memory when doing a logic game again? Am I not supposed to look at the rules or stimulus?

Has anyone done the strategy of reading through a passage once without highlighting, and reading through a second time and highlighting to hopefully be more specific with what you highlight? It has worked for me, but I keep finding that it takes me 4:30-5:00 to get through the passage.

Is there a run at forum or some thing where we can find discussions of why certain questions and get the answers that they do? In the case that JY does not have an exclamation video posted?

Thanks!

Hey guys if anyone needs help in LG just reach out!! I’ve done every game so hopefully I can be of some help!

Hi, friends!! Hope you are doing well. I have a question regarding LR study methods. I have done about 50+ PT, got the question type basics, and found some general trends when I am doing the questions. e.g. I found that I repeatedly fall prey to strengthen/weaken/flaw questions and the parallel questions in my recent PTs. I understand theories like correlation =/ causation flaws, but face problems discerning between answer choices on a case-to-case basis.

Since I do not have a lot of new PTs left, I wonder how should I make good use of the LR wrong answers during the review. Should I redo some, if not, most of them? How should I make a summary of the specifics of each question? Or should I spend more time blind reviewing the new PTs? I feel like I haven't done a great job at BR so far.

Background information: I plan to take the June LSAT. I am currently at ~-6/LR section and hope to improve to -2/-3. I welcome you to comment on efficient LR study methods. Thank you!!

#help

Question link: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-31-section-2-question-19/

Ok, I'm all on board with the correct answer and why that weakens.

Can someone please corroborate a few points on (D) for me?

Q1 - Can we really discard (D) on the basis that "there's a first time for every mistake..."?

I'm inclined to think we shouldn't. While of course "there's a first time for everything" is a true statement, doesn't the possibility that the florist has an immaculate record of correct deliveries give us some reason to doubt the conclusion?

I know, there is the presumption that this florist actually delivered flowers to Drew before, or delivered them enough times to have some kind of trend for accurate deliveries.

I know that the glaring presumption is still there that knowing SB’s preference = acting upon that knowledge. But I feel uncomfortable with discarding (D) just on there being possibilities for something running counter to it. Pretty much any A/C that is not calling out a sufficient assumption has embedded possibilities for it to not weaken as well, right? This is kind of related to my next question...

Q2 - Should we be cautious towards (D) on the basis that it appears to be attacking the conclusion?

I know this is a very, very infrequent occurrence, but I guess I don't really understand why we should be careful not to go after the conclusion itself if that's the most direct line of attack and that possibility is presented in front of us. I know we are to accept the premises and should rarely (if ever) attack those bits, so I wonder if it's stemming from this warning? I can't name specific questions off the top of my head, but I think I can recall some RC "weaken" questions whose correct answer does directly attack the conclusion. In this Q, should we exercise care in not attacking the conclusion solely b/c we are being asked to weaken the argument, which requires weakening the support b/w premises and conclusion, rather than just the conclusion itself?

Q3 - Can/should we eliminate (D) on the basis that even if the florist never made incorrect deliveries to Drew before, the conclusion is not invalidated, b/c the other possibilities mentioned are still wide open?

Those other possibilities being (1) Drew was supposed to receive a card or (2) the flowers were intended for SB else.

The conclusion merely states that the florist must have made some kind of mistake.

Appreciate anyone's thoughts on any of my questions!!

I learned a lesson this morning. Turn off your phone prior to taking any test. I started writing my essay and not even 2 minutes in my alarm went off. My phone had an alarm set that I forgot to turn off. It was in the next room and it was so LOUD. When it went off I went into complete shock. I went through so many emotions. I took a few slow breaths to try to calm down. I couldn’t get up and turn it off and the proctor will hear it. I tried my best to put coherent sentences together. Luckily I did the pros/cons in a separate piece of paper. Finally after what it seemed 20-25 minutes of hearing the alarm, it finally turned off. I spent the remaining time trying to make sense of the whole essay. Now sure what to do at this point. My score may be delayed. Turn off your phones prior to taking the test!

Does "but" mean "some"? Also, how do I differentiate when seeing "but" to put an "and" instead of "some" in LR questions?

Can anyone help me parse out the answer choices, particularly D and E? (both lawgic wise and why each one is correct/incorrect)?

thanks!

Because of the complaint that I filed about interruptions by my proctor LSAC has offered a retake on 22 April. I don't feel supremely confident that the test will be my goal score 160+, but I am confident it will be better than my last which was a 151 in January (bad test day).

Has anyone done a retake? Any advice?

Thanks!

Can someone please explain how D is correct? because when I read it, it did not seem like it would strengthen the argument, since its says consumers added smaller quantiles of coconut oil as oppose to whole milk.

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

Main conclusion question. I haven't missed one of these in a while but this one has me truly confused.

The conclusion of the stimulus is: "This demonstrates how the local media show too much deference toward public figures." ("This" being a case where a politician who was promoted as honest by the media was caught up in a corruption scandal.)

I was tempted by C, but chose E - The local newspaper's treatment of Clemens is indicative of its treatment of public figures in general. I chose E because to me it seemed important that Clemens' case was used to "demonstrate" this phenomenon. C didn't have that. C just says "the local news media show too much deference toward public figures."

Why is E wrong??

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-75-section-3-question-08/

My score in RC very much fluctuates. While I'm still practicing to read actively and note the overall structure/main point/view points/tone etc. before heading into the questions, I often find myself getting tripped up in the answer choices. It's where I spend the most time.

I was wondering if anyone can share their POE strategies for RC? I've seen multiple people say POE is a lifesaver; sometimes they can eliminate answer choices by a specific clause/word. Any insight appreciated - thanks!

Hello, friends! This is my first time posting some analysis on a question. Please feel free to provide feedback or any corrections.

STRENGTHEN

Premise: The same ingredients and processes were used to make Han purple AND a common white glass (during the Han and Qin periods in ancient China).

Conclusion: Han purple was probably discovered by accident while making the white glass.

Initial analysis: The stimulus includes nothing that suggests Han purple was particularly rare, or at least rarer than the white glass. There are a variety of problems with this logic, which has many gaping holes to fill with an answer. Just because two things are made similarly and with the same ingredients does not mean that one must've been discovered while making the other. They could've been discovered simultaneously, independently, etc.

Answer anticipation: Anything that shows that the white glass was made prior to Han purple, restricts geographic location of where both were made, shows that Han purple was rarer, shows that one must've been expert with white glass production to make Han purple, etc.

A: CORRECT. If chemical analysis shows that both Han purple and the white glass were made in a relatively restricted area, this eliminates the possibility that Han purple was discovered independently elsewhere.

B: No. How Han purple and the white glass were used AFTER creation tells us nothing about how Han purple was originally created / discovered.

C: No. We don't know if the technique for making white glass was also widely known. And the number of people who know how to make Han purple doesn't tell us anything about how it was created / discovered originally. Han purple could have been discovered independent of white glass with only a few people knowing how to make it.

D: No. How easily obtainable the ingredients were isn't relevant to answering whether Han purple was discovered while making white glass. If anything this weakens in some minuscule way—if ingredients were easily obtainable it makes it more likely that Han purple was discovered by a random person who happened to NOT be making white glass.

E: No. What is left of the white glass in artifacts today v. Han purple tells us nothing about how Han purple was discovered. Maybe it was discovered independently but for some reason just didn't hold up as well as the white glass did over time.

Final thoughts: I really struggled with this question during both my practice test and blind review and still missed on blind review (I typically go -2/3 on LR). I think it's because the argument was overall quite terrible and there were many logical holes that a correct answer choice could've filled so it was difficult to anticipate. For me, I didn't initially connect that limiting the geographical location could help, if even slightly.

As another commenter wrote about answer choice A online in a different forum:

"one of the weakest Strengthen answers you are ever likely to see."

'

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-74-section-1-question-17/

I took the April LSAT flex and did not buy the score preview before the test. I would like to get it now, but I can't find it anywhere on the LSAC website. Does anyone know where I can find it or if they will make it available on a certain day?

If C does not occur, then A and B cannot both occur

Would the diagram look like

/C > A or B

or...

/C > /A & /B

or are those both wrong @.@ I'm so confused

Hi guys! Taking the LSAT at 2pm today. I was wondering if you had any advice you are willing to share as to what your LSAT test day warm up is? I want to perform well on this test and I do not want to study too much or too the little morning of. Advice? What works best for you??? perform

LR still doesn't seem to be clicking for me. My goal is to be -1/0 in this section and I have heard a lot of positive things about Ellen Cassidy's Loophole book.

For those of you that have read it and tried other resources before you bought the book, what were your results and would you recommend it?

I only have the last few chapters left of Powerscore's LR Bible. I already read the stimulus first and aim to understand it first before I even read the question stem. I think most of my errors come in misunderstanding the answer choices, but sometimes I just have a conceptual misunderstanding when reading the stimulus too. Recently, I've been getting as many as -8/-9 wrong in a section. I've tried doing a few "blind verbal translation drills" because I saw them described and advocated for somewhere on this forum. I'm not under 20 minutes yet (most recent: 28 min with 4- poor, 3-ok, 9-good, 10 great. My system: GREAT = Concl. and all premises correct, GOOD = 1 premise slightly incorrect (on a multi-premise question), OK = 2 premises slightly incorrect, or concl. half correct, POOR = concl. Incorrect, or more than 2 premises incorrect)

Also, the trend I see with questions I get wrong: SA, Flaw, and NA.

I didn't complete all of 7Sage CC. I am a LSAC fee waiver recipient, so money is an issue and thought I would come here and get feedback before I made the investment on the Loophole book or paid the full price for a month of 7Sage CC.

If you have any general LR advice/guidance on what I should do, that would be much appreciated!

Thanks for your time :)

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?

First impression wise, this argument isn't great because the conclusion is so strongly worded ("no loss in safety"). We can strengthen this argument by showing that having two types of passenger vehicles on the road (one that's lighter and, hence, more fuel-efficient for driving local; another that's heavier and, hence, safer for driving on highways) does in fact save fuel without sacrificing safety.

Round 1 elimination:

A - can't quite see how this is relevant under timed, so saving this for later.

B - what kind of cars are we talking about? the lighter, more fuel-efficient ones or the heavier, safer (but less fuel-efficient) ones? and how much more are we talking about? if anything, B appears to weaken because it seems to show us one way that counteracts fuel-efficiency (if we were to assume that more cars driving on highways = less fuel-efficiency)

C - are "large" cars necessarily safer? we can't know for sure so we can't gauge its safety, which means we can't gauge the gains or losses in safety now versus twenty years ago

D - the argument is focused on two types of passenger vehicles only, not commercial vehicles.

E - can't quite make sense of this under timed either so saving this as well.

Round 2: down to A and E, both have a NA feel to them.

E gives us more info on our premise (manufacturers produced a type of passenger vehicle that's fuel-efficient), so E tells us what we already know. Of course some manufacturers had to have designed prototypes for fuel-efficient passenger vehicles first before actually producing them.

More importantly, E doesn't convince us that there's no loss in safety now that these two types of passenger vehicles are being driven.

A - a NA type strengthener.

Negating this: most households with family members who drive on highways don't own at least 2 passenger vehicles.

If that's the case, then it's unlikely that these people are driving heavier, safer cars on highways.

Why? Because it's reasonable to assume that they drive local too, and to achieve net savings in fuel use, these people should be driving lighter, more fuel-efficient cars. But that means they aren't driving in heavier, safer cars on highways, which strongly indicates that there is in fact a net loss in safety.