Hi all,

I've been struggling to wrap my head around this question (i'll post below). Can anyone explain this?

"It must be true that the lowest-numbered line on which" changes to "no lower than line". . . Why is it not that F can be lines 2 or 1?

It must be true that the lowest-numbered line on which

(A) F can be assembled is line 2

(B) G can be assembled is line 3

(C) J can be assembled is line 2

(D) K can be assembled is line 3

(E) M can be assembled is line 2

(A): Does it have to be true that F can be no lower than line 2? In other words, could F be 1st?

F could be lower than line 2! We have no rules stopping F from being 1st, and for completion’s sake—though you probably wouldn’t do this on Test Day—we’ll give you an example. F could be 1st, for example if the order were: FMGSJKH. Although there are several other possible scenarios in which F can be 1st, finding just one is sufficient to determine that this choice’s statement “could be false.”

#help

I got this Necessary Assumption question right, and while it wasn't completely a shot in the dark, I'm struggling to articulate what the argument is saying, and why C is the correct answer. So here I will try to type it out. Any feedback is appreciated.

Argument: The banks should not bear the cost of the insurance. It should be the depositors aka the people who benefit from the insurance.

The necessary assumption: Banks aren't already doing something that offsets the insurance costs they're responsible for

Is it just me or PT1-20 RC are all over the place? I hold a study average of -5 on 60+ but start bombing on 1990's PT. 4th attempt any now my confidence is all over the place.

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!

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.

I am struggling with logical reasoning, specifically with weaken/strengthen questions. From someone who consistently does well in LR do you have any study tips?

-Struggling

Hi folks. The LSAC emails say results will be issued on the 29th. Does anyone know if they stick to those dates or they tend to be flexible with when they get released?

So two of my best LR question types are MSS/MBT and I'm pretty sound with the other RC inference questions but I am getting absolutely demolished by these (29% accuracy, by far my worst RC q-type). Anyone else have this problem and/or any tips?

Hello, I also posted on the reading lesson part, but I am doing it again here in the discussion section.

I would like to know if anyone could be given advice.

I started to study for the LSAT a few months ago, and I am struggling with the reading comprehension part.

As a non-native English speaker, this is by far the most challenging section for me. And I am a non-traditional applicant who finished my undergrad more than ten years ago, so, unfortunately, I've not read too much complicated thing in English until recently. I want to know if it is good to skip one passage and focus on three passages due to my reading speed. Also, to improve my overall score, should I focus on logical reasoning and games parts? Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

P.S. My target score is 160-162.

Anybody wants to shed some light on the LAWGIC aspect of this question?

Apparently, according to PowerScore explanation, the stimulus is a bi-conditional relationship because of the phrase "if it satisfies two requirements".

Therefore, the bi-conditional relationship is as follows:

Accurately Describes using a few elements AND Make Definite Predictions (---) Good theory.

Would the contrapositive of above become:

/Good theory (---) /Accurately Describes using a few elements OR /Make Definite Predictions?

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

Ex. PT 35 S3 G2 Q8 : Rule for the question is If L then P. Causing 2 options to be chosen when L is chosen.

The element T however based on the rules in the beginning causes T to have only 1 (P,L,S).

I haven't done that many logic games yet, but I thought when a question changes the rule and the possibility of T having P is possible (P,L,S is part of the board for the elements to have), wouldn't it be overriding the rule that T has to have only 1 (Rule fewer than Z, if your looking at the game and actual rule).

I know for questions that have local rules the rules for that only pertain to that question and is disregarded for the rest of the questions.

Sorry in advance if I couldn't explain what I was trying to say correctly.

When I see A->B structure in the stimulus,

The right answers should be

The wrong answers should be

And these are irrelevant (could be true) ?

I feel as though I have been doing LG forever now. I am finally getting the game types one by one but it should not be taking me this long. Does anyone have any methods for each game type that they would be willing to share?

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/

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?

#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!!

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?

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!

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!!

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

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]."

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

thanks!

I'm not sure if this is the correct place? Are we allowed to ask questions about individual questions? If it's not allowed (sorry!) let me know and I will delete this thread, or someone can take appropriate action.

Assuming this is all kosher, I don't understand why the answer is A for this question. This was one of those questions where I thought all of the answer choices seemed wrong--I was stuck between B and D, and didn't even consider A. I ruled out A because I thought the stimulus was talking about a hypothetical situation where the patients with a greater tendency to laugh weren't laughing a lot, so why would the answer be that it doesn't take into account that they laughed more?

Is A correct because when people, whose tendencies to laugh are greater, "laugh a little" they laugh MORE than other patients who laugh a greater amount than usual, but still less than the laughy people laughing less? (I thought this greater amount meant that they were laughing more than the people who have the tendency to laugh more. Is it that they are laughing a greater amount than they usually laugh? If so then I guess I understand A...)

Sorry this isn't super succinct but I am hella confused, any help would be appreciated!

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-72-section-3-question-07/