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!

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/

Hello people of 7Sage,

On Saturday I took the LSAT. I had been studying for months, wasn't doing too bad on my practice tests, (although I didn't take as many as perhaps I should have) and I'd been getting good accuracy when I practiced on my own. I was feeling pretty confident that I would not screw it up too bad, and accepted that no matter the score I'd probably take it again in the summer.

Well, I completely froze and had a mental break down during the LG section. The pressure of the timer just broke my spirit and blocked all access to my memories. I managed to get through one game, and then when I got to the second I realized that it was a type I had not practiced for a long time and became hyper aware of how long it was taking me to figure out how to set up the game board. That's when all hell broke loose and I basically gave up and essentially guessed on all of the LG section. I finished the other two sections without cracking under the time pressure, but I barely had time to look at my answers. It would take some miracle for my score not to be complete trash.

I know its not the end of the world, this test is designed to push your limits mentally, but I still can't believe how I froze up like that! Has anybody ever had this happen to them on test day? I felt like I could not breathe or think! As soon as the exam ended I burst into tears. The questions didn't seem particularly difficult, but I just feel like I let myself down. I'm really hoping this won't crush my confidence in the future.

Hi, I would appreciate it if someone could explain how "that style of argumentation" in the third sentence refers to "impugning the motives" instead of "taken a partisan stance". I thought "a partisan stance" can be said as a style of argumentation.

Thank you for the help.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-84-section-3-question-22/

For this question, I conceived the flaw to be"from correlation to causation, and thus to prescriptive assertion". I was threw off by E at my first sight for its first premise "most people who exercise regularly are able to handle stress."

I guess I wouldn't often read a sentence with "most subjects + predicate" as a correlation. But at hindsight, if I translate the sentence into "over 50% of people who exercise regularly can handle stress.", then the statistics can be a strong indicator for showing a correlation.

So does anyone have a suggestion on how do you usually spot a correlation?

Thank you very much for your help.

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q#"

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-22-section-2-question-23/

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

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.

Every time I create LR problem sets or take PTs, I try to review by watching the videos of the answers that I got wrong but it always says discuss instead. How do I watch solutions of LR videos of questions that I failed after taking them? This frustrates me because I don't get to see the mistakes that I made to get better.

Sat for the exam today. Spent two hours trying to get past the pre-check requirements, my audio or video feed kept “disconnecting.”

When I finally got in, I was interrupted 2 minutes into my 1st section, that my video feed disconnected. Waited 10 minutes for technicians to fix the issue. This happened two more times. Time of exam was 3:40pm. Finished at 8:30pm

I went through 9 proctors, and 8 technicians.

Anybody with a similar experience? What recourse did you or will you take?

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

Some customers prefer vanilla to chocolate and no customer has no preference in the matter. Therefore, most customers prefer chocolate.

Most customers order chocolate ice cream, and most customers get toppings. All customers who get toppings get a free hat. So, some people who order chocolate ice cream get a free hat.

Everyone who orders a sundae gets offered a free extra cherry, and most people say yes to the free extra cherry. Some people who order the banana split get offered a free extra cherry, and less than half of those people say yes. Therefore, more customers get a free cherry with a sundae than they do with a banana split.

Everyone who orders a sundae gets offered a free extra cherry, and most people say yes to the free extra cherry. Some people who order the banana split get offered a free extra cherry, and less than half of those people say yes. So, people who order a sundae are more likely to say yes to a free extra cherry than are people who order a banana split.

Solutions

Valid: 2 & 4

Invalid: 1 & 3

Overall, I'm having difficulty mapping out the solutions with some, most, all... Thank you very much for your help in advance!

Hi, Thank you for your time. Please take a look at the following stimulus:

All students at Pitcombe College were asked to label themselves conservative, liberal, or middle-of-the-road politically. Of the students, 25 percent labelled themselves conservative, 24 percent labelled themselves liberal, and 51 percent labelled themselves middle-of-the-road. When asked about a particular set of issues, however, 77 percent of the students endorsed what is generally regarded as a liberal position.

Could someone explain how do I know "or" in the first sentence is exclusive or inclusive? There is no information that each student can only label itself once or by one label.

Thank you very much.

Hi, __I'm a student testing for the LSAT flex this April, but I saw that my testing date was moved from April 11th to April 13th eastern time.

Has anybody else had this problem?

I saw on the site that some tests could be delayed for proctor requirement accommodations, but I think this is so unfair if that's the case for me :(

I now have to take the test on a between two busy school days at nighttime hahahahah. I was expecting a peaceful sunday testing lmao.

I just listened to the podcast episode with Al (highly recommended!) where he mentions how he practiced LG to account for his nerves by learning to distinguish between 'brute force games' vs. 'inference based games' (he didn't use these exact terms but that was the idea I think). I just loved his idea but felt the need to solidify his approach so I can apply it too. From what I gather, he mainly practiced two things for this:

Infer the plainly obvious (for like 10 secs) and stop. Proceed to other rules/questions.

He did 2 sections this way every day.

Trying to solve the game as much as possible from the rules.

He did this for harder games (games 3 and 4) without worrying about the time.

I feel like if you're like me (and Al for that matter) and you do well with typical sequencing/grouping games but choke when you get to the toughest/misc. game because you can't find the inferences (and are also unable to brute force because you want to find inferences), I think you'll really benefit from Al's approach. Here's how I'm thinking of putting his method into practice:

I'm curious how everyone else who listened the episode thinks about his method and how to apply it. Couldn't find his username but Al, your input would be very much appreciated if you happen see this post! :)

Admin Note: https://soundcloud.com/user-737824810/41-7sager-al-156-to-172-lsat

7sage.com/forums/profile/lexxx745

@lexxx745

First impression wise, not a bad argument, but we're looking for an AC that shows that despite the fact that broadsides had statements about morals, it doesn't mean that most 17th century people were serious about moral values.

Maybe people back then bought broadsides for other reasons unrelated to those moralizing statements. This is the loophole in our argument.

B - gives us another reason why people bought broadsides: they were drawn to the sensationalized account of crime and adultery rather than to the morals.

B shows that broadsides were also entertaining in nature, not just moralizing.

A - regardless of whether broadsides are of low or high literary quality, they were still moralizing in nature, and people still bought them, but we're still left wondering whether people bought broadsides because they cared about morals or something else.

C - gives us an irrelevant mini history lesson.

D - premise booster. Tells us what we know already, namely that broadsides were moralizing in nature, so it makes sense for the clergy to use the broadsides for moralistic purposes. But we're still left wondering whether the people actually cared about moral values or not.

E - it doesn't matter what well-educated people think or feel about broadsides but how they think about moral values. Also tells us nothing about what the remaining non-well-educated people think about morals, which means we most likely can't justify the "most" statement in the conclusion.

Hey guys, I am currently BR ing and was wondering about step2. What do I do if my reasoning for crossing out wrong answers is different from JY or other "correct" reasons why the answer choice is wrong? I know I sound confusing as hell. So in step2, you circle the correct Answer and before that, for 4 wrong answer choices, you need to lay out why each of them is wrong. I am asking what do I do if my reasons for why they are wrong is different from other expert's reasons for why they are wrong. Thanks for reading this confusing ass post and I would appreciate you guys' help!

Hey everyone! I wondered if anyone had any tips on improving RC when my timed score is -13 but untimed is -5. Once it's untimed, I can start to parse through the words and get more of an idea of what to answer, but during a timed section, I understand but can't evaluate between two or three really "good looking" answers. Any thoughts on how I would go about that? Also, even knowing that the passages will get more challenging, I find myself spending more time on the first two passages and then leaving the last passages to complete in a hurry, causing obvious inaccuracy issues. Anyways to improve that?

I am aware that fooldproofing LG is a tried and true method but do you guys foolproof the whole section with the all 4 games? Or just the games in the section individually , one by one ?

I was wondering if anyone has a list of econ and geology passages. I have a hard time parsing through these types of passages and I want to love reading them. If they have a high amount of infer/analogy questions that would be a great bonus too.

Thanks!

Edit: Jazz/blues also

I just took my first official test this morning and I have doubts about how well I did. I felt less confident with my test performance today than on a typical PT but maybe that is normal.

I started with a 152 diagnostic on Feb 1 and have spent roughly 4+ hours studying each day since. I have taken roughly 12 PT with my last 5 averaging to a 168 (scored between 167-170 on all 5 with BR typically a point higher with one exception when I scored 176 on BR after a 170 during timed conditions). My ultimate goal is 170+. Recently I've gone -0 on LG, between 2-5 n LR and 3-6 on RC. I felt today I was definitely closer to the lower end (5-6+ wrong) on both LR and RC.

For those who have taken the test multiple times: did you continue studying right after your latest official attempt or did you take time off between the test and when your official score was released before reevaluating/resuming your study schedule?

I started with Mike Kim's LSAT trainer for one month and then moved to 7 sage for about six weeks. I was considering purchasing the power score bible for LR and then also reviewing the basic curriculum in 7sage rather than jumping right back into PT and problem sets but I am open to other's opinions/experiences.

Conclusion: It is premature to conclude that telepathy is an alternative means of communication.

Can anyone explain why (A) is the answer? In what part of the premise does the author points to "the inadequacy of evidence for the opposite view?"

Admin note: edited title.

I'm sure this has been discussed before, but I'm at that 160s hump. I'm ranging from anywhere between 160-mid160s. I can't seem to get passed it. I'm around 1-3 LG, 2-5 RC, and 6-8 LR!!! The LR section is really dragging me down. I'm thinking about re-reading The Loophole. I've already done 7sage's core curriculum. I've even read Mike Kim's book and the PowerScore LR Bible. Does anyone have any other suggestions for improving on the LR?

1.By blind reviewing every single question, LSAT students save a lot of time and get their target score faster than students who BR only flags questions, while the latter group of students reviews individual PT quicker and takes more PTs.

Which one of the following, if true, would best reconcile the statement above?

A. Few LSAT students have detailed knowledge of LSAT theories about the relationship between BR and score.

B. By BR every single question, LSAT students are getting a deeper understanding of the material, and reinforce their technic for questions they got right.

D. ... your variant