"Sequencing Game Wa Twist Double Problem Set 3" I think is one of the holy grail problem sets that dramatically improved the way I view hard sequencing games. Highly recommend fool proofing it if you haven't.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/sequencing-game-wa-twist-double-problem-set-3/

I'm debating to cancel or keep my June 2021. It was about 90th percentile but I'm shooting for 170+ and faced some issues on test day. I think I can do better but don't know if a cancel would look worse than just keeping my score. Any advice?

I was reviewing a question I have seen many, many... many times over. PT40.S1.14 for anyone interested.

Today as I was analyzing the stimulus, my pre-phrase for the flaw was that it was the classic argument from ignorance fallacy (an assertion that a claim is either true or false because of a lack of evidence to the contrary; aka "you didn't disprove/prove this, so you're wrong/I'm right"). This is an informal logical fallacy.

I went to the answer choices and liked C the best. It reads, "The argument takes for granted that if the truth of one claim implies the truth of a second claim, then the falsity of the first claim proves that falsity of the second claim." I thought this wasn't written exactly as I had in mind, but it described the flaw in formal logic. The even more classic sufficient/necessary mix-up/incorrect negation/incorrect reversal (all of these describe the same formal error). Oldest trick in the book. And then the lightbulb in my brain went off.

Answer choice C is saying the argument assumed that if A --> B, then /A proves /B. Isn't this very similar to that argument from ignorance fallacy? You didn't prove A to me (you presented /A), so your claim about B is wrong (/B).

Basically, the sufficient/necessary flaw is the formal logic mirror to the informal argument from ignorance fallacy. The former requires a tight argument structure, while the latter is more flexible with looser language. In essence, however, they are the same error. Until now, I had kept formal and informal logic as separate and unrelated, but they actually overlap. And this is exactly how the test writers will disguise/describe the same flaws in different ways-- not just in the stimuli but in answer choices as well. 🤯

Thinking about the contrapositives is also interesting. The formal logic error of an incorrect reversal is pretty obvious: B --> A. But if we consider the "expressed contrapositive" (in quotes because I just made up this term and don't think there is such a thing in informal logic), then it's something like, "Your conclusion about B is not wrong, so you proved A." Your conclusion exists, so your premises are proven? Lol, wtf? No wonder these are logical fallacies.

Anyway, maybe I'm slow and everyone already knew this, lol. It was an a-ha moment for me so I wanted to write it out. If I have made a mistake, someone please correct me. If you have other realizations about the flaws/fallacies/question types, please share as well!

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-40-section-1-question-14/

[I am posting on behalf of a 7Sage user. Please feel free to leave your comments below. Thank you for your help!]

I've been studying with 7Sage for about a year now and I have a question regarding embedded conditionals. I know there's already a lesson on how to translate an embedded conditional; however, I found a weird conditional while studying the LSAT and was wondering how you would go about translating this one as it's the opposite of the embedded conditional.

What is taught in the embedded conditional module on 7Sage is that when you see, "If A, then /B unless C" you just translate it to, "A and B, then C"

I understand this. But while studying LR, I found an unusual type of embedded conditional that goes the other way around. How would you go about translating this? The embedded conditional, I forgot what specific PT/ question, said something along the lines of: "/A unless B, then C." Just confused on how to translate this as this is not the same as the former example provided by J.Y. Would it still be the same translation? I don't think it would, right?

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/mastery-embedded-conditional/

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/mastery-embedded-conditional-proof/?ss_completed_lesson=1107

So I picked A in both the first run and the blind review. I'm thinking the reason it's wrong is that the action did not cause harm and the prompt explicitly states morally bad actions cause harm. I considered E in the blind review but ruled it out because I wanted to be right about A and thought he could not have foreseen the kid being hit by a bike. But of course, when you're watching a kid that's why you want to keep them out of the street--so they don't get hit by anything.

Hi all, I have been tracking necessary questions for about two weeks. I was on a roll getting 5/5’s from the syllabus course and now the questions are getting harder and harder and I’m not quite able to negate as fast, nor do I understand what I am negating half the time or how I come up with the right answer for these harder questions. I’m going to be honest, it’s the stimulus that I flat out don’t understand sometimes and I always eliminate down to two answer choices and choose the wrong one still (again choosing the wrong one because I can’t negate very well). I always blind review and watch the explanation videos but it’s always until after does it make sense. I can’t seem to make this jump on my own. 2 weeks ago, weaken questions were my worst and I drilled and drilled and now I get them all right, but these necessary assumption ones are the death of me. Can someone try to dumb it down for me since obviously I can’t get it? Thank you, I am not a quitter but I am getting really discouraged on this particular question type.

I know we’ll be getting an email on July 29th telling us that we can sign up for a time slot, but what time does that email typically go out? Also, would I be able to sign up for a time slot on an iPhone? Thanks!

RC is my weak section. I am retaking in August so im focusing heavy on it. I am using a new strategy (I was just flat out reading before, forgetting everything and getting lost). This strategy is working, I got -4 compared to -11 on a section. But im doing it untimed to make sure I do it properly.... any suggestions on how to slowly transition this into timed sections by the August test?

Thank you so much 7sage for the information that ya'll provide. I started this journey just about a year ago and have improved my score by 12 points by using 7sage and power score bibles.

I am a living testimonial of faith and keeping God first.

With the amount of work you put in with your LSAT studies; you can do it!

See y'all later my future lawyer's.

Hey everyone,

I've done a couple of PT's so far and am trying to improve on the question types the test analytics have pointed out to prioritize. However, I'm not seeing much improvement. I'm doing problem sets of the types and reviewing the strategies behind each but to no avail I'm still not improving. Within a PT, specifically with LR sections, I may get -3 and on other I get -10, and sometimes even -10 on both. I truly don't know what to do and where I'm going wrong. I've even started writing out why each answer is right and others are wrong lately.

I truly would like to get to the point where LR isn't so varied for me. Any advice on how to get there, especially when getting to -3 and -4 is possible for me, would be greatly appreciated.

My LR scores for PT's 70- 77 have been for section 2/ section 3:

70 -3/-6

71 -13/-8

72 -4/-8

73 -7/-14

74 -8/-4

75 -6/ -10

76 -10/-5

77 -10/-10

I understand bi-conditionals, advanced logic, etc. I always get thrown off when I have to make multiple boards in In/Out Games. Can anyone give me some advice on when to make multiple boards and how many boards to make? Are there any words I should be looking out for?

[I am posting on behalf of 7Sage user. Please feel free to leave your comments below. Thank you for your help!]

Hi! I am working through LG and I'm having issues with "not both" "or" and biconditionals, particularly in the wording of game rules. Is there a list of common game rules that imply "not both"? A list of common game rules that imply the never apart biconditional?

Hey guys, is the August test going to be 3 sections scored and 1 section experimental now? Are you practicing with the 4 sections test? How are you scoring it?

Hello fellow students,

I apologize for the vague nature of my question, but I am issuing this post in search of any possible tips, advice, etc.

I have been studying the LSAT (predominantly on 7sage) for the past 2-3 months. On my practice exams my average LG score is -1 and LR score is -4. These are noticeable improvements from when I first began this summer, and more importantly these scores satisfy my target/goal.

However, when it comes to RC it is very difficult to see steady improvement. My average score on a RC is -8 with scores ranging from -4 all the way to a disastrous -14. Despite seeing consistent improvement in other sections, my RC score is as much of a toss-up as it was on day 1.

I have watched the majority of the curriculum regarding RC questions and (to the best of my ability) attempt to utilize low resolution summaries, however I am still stuck.

I was wondering if anyone else had a similar struggle and has found a way to overcome such an issue through different study methods, tips during the reading of passages, etc.

Any input would be greatly appreciated :)

hi, how are you simulating this test? are you guys taking 4 sections and scoring all 4 sections. And are you guys alternating the 4th section between LR, LG and RC?

Plan is to take my real "high-scoring test" in August and this is like a mid-way test. I saw that my PT's were hitting 162's and 163's when my goal is really above 165 this Saturday. My score splits are really annoying, I might be working too hard but recently they've kind have gone down the drain. When I was working LR sections last week the worst I was seeing was -5/-6 and a decent amount of -2/-3's but today I hit a -9 and I've had a few -7/-8s recently. What is really annoying is that I did a -5 on RC today which is good for me, usually I am around -6/-7. A few days ago I hit a 164 with a -3 on LR and a -4 on LG and a -7 on RC, I had not worked on LG for probably 2 weeks at that point and it clearly reflected, I probably should have refreshed my mind before that test. My logic games are usually around -1/-2 but I have pretty much run out of sections so I have been reusing a lot of material. Can I have some advice for this weekend, and even some advice for getting that 172+ in August?

Even though I routinely go -0 on LG, I find games far more mentally demanding online as opposed to on paper. The constant micro-interruptions caused by the need to glance back and forth from screen to page (and then having to spend time locating/processing the text) slows me down and interrupts my train of thought. I often have to reread things I just read seconds before as a result. To put it another way, my cognitive load feels much higher when doing LG online. On the paper test you can draw a diagram literally one inch from the question and so any eye movement/tracking is minimal.

Does anyone else experience this? I don't know if I am particularly susceptible to this kind of thing, but I am looking for suggestions for how to minimize these effects since I know the online test isn't going away. Thoughts?

I am starting to prepare for the August test after taken the June test. RC is my worst section and I wasn't really following a specific strategy before. Should I be focusing mainly on just structure, main point, and tone as im reading?

Hey 7Sagers,

Here's the official June 2021 LSAT-Flex Discussion Thread.

**Please keep all discussions of the June 2021 LSAT-Flex here!**(/red)

Rules:

❌ You can't discuss specific questions. 🙅‍♂️

You CANNOT say things such as the following:

Doesn't answer E attack the premise? Since in the passage it says that extractable known field remains the same and answer choice E says the lands that are unextractable are considered extractable now.

I can understand how ACs A-D are incorrect. I am truly struggling to see how E is correct.

My contention here is that even if a greater proportion of crimes are reported in recent years, those independent surveys would still include all of the non-reported and reported victims. Therefore, there is no way to make the argument that these two things could be viewed separately. The video explanation really did not clear this up for me. Can someone possibly explain how to understand this more clearly?

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

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-c2-section-2-question-19/

Hey guys,

I just took prep test 70 and did so poorly on logical reasoning I got 12 wrong. I knew for sure I would get some wrong but wasn't expecting that. Do you guys have any recommendations for how to improve?

I took the June test and got a 153 but I was getting155-161 on all PT's. I think it had to have been nerves as I couldn't remember anything after I took the test?? So I am obviously retaking in August. Is a 160 - 164 too high to shoot for?

When reading the stimulus, I thought that the "population" meant all of the delta green ground beetles. How am I supposed to know that the "population" refers just to the observed number of delta green ground beetles?

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

#help

So, I've chosen B, both under timed conditions and blind review. Below is my reasoning:

B: If I am more willing to sacrifice consistency than to sacrifice flavor, I am more willing to refrain from buying stabilizers and keeping temperatures low (therefore energy costs up), thereby saving costs. Therefore, cost considerations indeed favor sacrificing consistency over sacrificing flavor.

Why is B wrong?

Moreover, I am not fully convinced that E is correct. It's clear that stable temperatures (no matter whether they are very low or not, stable means to me that there are no temperature changes which adversely affect the consistency) allow for the best possible consistency. But how do we know that very low, stable temperatures allow for the best possible flavour? We are not told anything about the relation between flavour and temperature (it could be the case that lower temperatures have adverse effects on flavour).

Maybe I'm overthinking it with E though, the process of written expression of my thoughts actually almost convinced me that E sounds logical. The question I'm concerned the most with is why B is wrong.