Hi there! I'm working on my AR and am having a hard time understanding this question and how to set up. Would appreciate any support.

The questions in this exercise are based on the set of conditions described below. You may find it useful to draw a rough diagram.

Beginning of reading passage.

A train makes five trips around a loop through five stations—P, Q, R, S, and T, in that order—stopping at exactly three of the stations on each trip. The train must conform to the following conditions:

The train stops at any given station on exactly three trips, but not on three consecutive trips.

The train stops at any given station at least once in any two consecutive trips.

Hello , Is there wording that I should look for in the stimulus that lets me know when to use grouping or chart techniques ? During PT85 I initially drew a game as a chart only later to recover and find out that It would be much suitable as a grouping game. I would like to avoid this error in the future any guidance is welcomed !

I didn't want to leave a blank during the timed PT so I chose B even though I really didn't like any of the options at all even after BR.

For A, which is the credited AC, we are told OPV causes 12 cases + no natural cases of Polio each year while IPV causes only 6 + a "few" natural cases.

In this context, it appears to me that a "few" could refer to any single digit number given the values provided of the cases created by the vaccines in the stimulus. So if we take A to be true, then IPV total cases to be 6 + (2) through 6 + (5), could reasonably be a strengthener in my view. So could this choice not be a strengthen, neutral ((6) + (6)), or weaken, thus invalidating it?

Are we simply meant to infer that a "few" is defined in relation to the total population of North America, presumably some large number in the hundreds, if not thousands, and NOT in relation to the value of the "artificial" cases, 12 and 6 by the OPV and IPV respectively?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-47-section-1-question-19/

Hello folks,

I have a quick question regarding the third passage of PT18. I don't quite get question #17. The answer is C, which states that the council "did not have complete autonomy in governing the Cherokee Nation." But how are we supposed to infer this fact? Where is it written? I understand that the second half of the answer matches with what we could expect, but I couldn't pick this answer given that I had no basis to believe that the council did or didn't have complete autonomy in governing the Cherokee Nation.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated :)

Cheers,

KT

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-18-section-3-passage-3-questions/

Hi,

To learn all the lsat tricks, I wanna discuss a flaw sentence. This is from PT30-S4-Q14 (E): "it fails to distinguish between a true claim that has mistakenly been believed to be false and a false claim that has mistakenly been believed to be true."

It basically means a guy confuses a contended true statement with a contended false statement. But, how is it even possible to frame an argument which commits such a fallacy? Say:

"Tom told me that the Sun is not the center of our universe, but there are numerous evidence disprove his assertion, thus what Tom says is true."

Does my example sentence manifest the fallacy? If not, could someone help provide an example sentence?

Thank you for the help.

Hello everyone!

I have some slots open for a free LG tutoring section!

If you need help with any other parts I can help with those as well.

Hi all,

I'm really struggling with In and Out Logic Games!I'm able to write out all the rules but with connecting them and contra posing I get a little lost and waste so much time trying to complete these types of games. Is anyone able to tutor me? I'm on Pacific Standard time! :D

Hi,

Hopefully someone can help me out. I'm very confused by this question. I have no idea how the logic in this question works. I thought it was about Dolores' ability to fulfil a need, which made E tempting, but I'm struggling to figure out what makes A-D different from each other and what is actually going on.

Thanks!

Can someone explain this problem to me? I'm pretty lost PT1S3Q11 Logical Reasoning

Hey everybody! I am slotted to take the LSAT in April, and I'm feeling a little stressed out. I was hoping to push back my test date to June, but I just got an internship that is going to require me to move across the country. I've been study for 4-5 months now, and I think that maybe I should just go ahead and take the April one before I have to leave for my internship.

It would really help me out if someone has advice for last minute studying given these time constraints (important to note: I am also in college...). I think I'll have to take it twice regardless, but I don't want to just throw away my chances of a decent score in April. Plz help!

How do we sign up for a specific time/date on the April Flex?

Hi,

I've recently started doing the newer pts between 70-80 and seen a significant drop in my LR score which I can probably fix through pt exposure but a more consistent issue with LR has been that I am only able to get questions right after a lot of review but under timed conditions this is really tough for me. Partially because I take time to warm up but also because I have no strategy on how to attack answer choices. I know there are no shortcuts to getting better at LR but I would still appreciate if someone can advise me on how to attempt the section? Do people read all answer choices from beginning to end?

My current strategy is to highlight conclusions if I can find one and make a predication (which doesn't come naturally to me so I often find myself moving to the answer choices without a prediction under timed conditions). My average LR score is -9 which can go down to a -3 after BR.

Hi,

I am wondering how would you negate the sentence per title ("Sentence')?

I had three candidates, as follows, in mind, but I don't know which one is most correct:

Among them, 1. seems the most correct but doesn't further elucidate the Sentence. Both 2. & 3. make the Sentence clearer, yet I can't be sure which one is correct or a proper negation according to logic.

Could someone please explain or share your insights?

Thank you for your help.

After 2 years of studying for this crazy exam, I have always been so bad at weakening questions. Sometimes doing problem sets untimed and still getting weakening questions incorrect and continuously falling for the trap answers. I feel like weakening ACs are so subjective and ambiguous. Even when I dissect the stimulus and separate the premises, find the assumptions that connect the premises and conclusion, I still get it wrong because I feel like there is SO much reasoning involved in weakening questions that it is nearly impossible to do under timed conditions. Surprisingly I am pretty good at strengthening questions. So I'm in a bit of a paradox lol

Powerscore says to focus on the conclusion, 7sage says focus on the assumption. Both forms of advice have not really helped me thus far.

Any advice? This exam is so frustrating lol

Thanks Y'all !

When I don't have time to take a full practice test, I'd like to just take a practice section. For LG I've been creating Problem Sets with the 4 games from a particular test, which works great. But when I try to create a Problem Set for LR, it calculates my time for the section based on the number of questions rather than giving me the flat 35 minutes. Is there a better way to drill LR sections?

Hi guys,

Is it recommended to do ALL the problem sets in the LG section of the CC or should I save some for later? For the LR section, I only did about every other problem set and that seemed to work well for me, but I'm not sure if I should handle LGs differently?

Thanks!

In the Core Curriculum we learned that “some” implies the possibility of “all.” But in a sentence like, “some of the lumber is cut to exact dimensions, some of it is not,” we have to exclude the possibility of some meaning “all,” is that right? Thanks!

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/some-statements-meaning/

Hi! I'm taking the LSAT in April, and I'm trying to think ahead to what day/time of day I'll want to take the test when it comes time to sign up. Does anyone have any advice/recommendations? I've read before that it's better to take exams in the morning, but I'm also not a morning person so I'm not sure that's what will be best for me. Would love to hear about other people's experiences with the flex! :)

Edit: I guess it would help if I actually had a typical time of day that I take PTs

J.Y. Ping said:

(1) All bananas are made of atoms. [B–>A]

(2) All non-bananas are made of atoms. [/B–>A]

(1) and (2) are consistent with each other.

The contradiction (must be false statement) to (1) would be some bananas are not made of atoms. [B some /A]

HERE Where I AM CONFUSED!!!

But contradiction of all (B are A) is (not A not B) , hence (A is not B) is acceptable since we are failing sufficient only, but contrapositive of that is (B is not A) so we can say (B is not A) hence some bananas are not made of atoms. Please help someone.

I have been at it with the games for about 2.5 months now. If it helps, I follow the pacifico strategy. I can do most of PT 1-23 with my worst being around ~5 on time or with time left. However, when I take a new game, even if I know how to complete it, it takes a long time and I end up missing half the questions. Hence, my timing is the same as it was when I first started fool-proofing even though I "feel" that my inferencing skills have gotten much stronger. I am trying not "hate" this section, but as someone who doesn't enjoy the games, the apparent ineffectiveness of fool-proofing is extremely frustrating. It feels like a waste of time especially because I have not dedicated as much time to the other sections which I am relatively good at: LR (-7 to -5) and RC(-5 to -2). Also, since I'm shooting for June, I don't think I have time to spend another month on fool-proofing. However, I know I need to get my current -10+ to something much lower to break into my goal score. I am just rambling now but I need suggestions on how to re-approach games. Has anyone tried something better than fool-proofing that has worked?

I really need help understanding why there is any correct answer to this question.

It says that one of John's friends must be lying, but how do we know that that is true since it is possible that John is mistaken and he might actually be unique among his friends.

Couldn't it be possible that John is the person everyone else is referring to?

How can I take LG in PTs without influencing other sessions, I want to take complete LG questions like the normal exam, but I don't know how to take only the session I want in the PTs, the results and timing without affecting other sessions

I just cant figure logic games out under times conditions. I keep getting 7-10 wrong every test, and if i can just master them i will have the score i need.

Does anyone have any tips they could help me with?

I've noticed the importance that is placed on foolproofing on 7sage but one thing that i keep getting stuck on is the amount of games that the core curriculum gives and how long it would take to properly foolproof them.

What is the best way to efficiently foolproof without having to forfeit the time necessary for the other two sections? Should I just foolproof the games from my practice tests? Pick them out randomly from cc?

any advice would be appreciated!

Regarding one of the core lessons, not all/ some not.

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/advanced-negate-all-statements/?ss_completed_lesson=1055

I am still confused.

Why does some not cover 0-99? Why from 0?

Isn't it supposed to be 1-99?

From the example sentence,

Some cats are not pretentious.

It seems odd if it means, "0 cats are not pretentious"

Could you help me understand this?

Thanks.