I’m gradually grasping several crucial concepts and developing my intuition. Even when I make mistakes, I identify my errors and comprehend the concepts well and in less time.

However, I’m having a large problem: I’m unsure whether it’s more advantageous to read the stimulus first or the question stem. I’ve seen varying opinions, with some suggesting that reading the stimulus first is better, while others promote the opposite approach. What do you guys do, and what are the benefits of doing that approach for you?

I am consistently getting 80% when I select for highest difficulty level on MC questions. Is it worth continuing to focus only on MC questions, or should I move on to other topics? Not sure what the ideal strategy is.

Help I am having trouble dealing with both conditions…the sufficient condition and the necessary condition in the pasaje of MBT, MSS & MBF. When I go to look for an answer I get confused because I always see extreme language like “only if, always & others”. And those anwears only benefit the neccesary part so I end up discarting them. In the blind reviews I even get them wrong. Do you guys have any recomendations? I think Im looking for the ideal anwear & I know its not present.

Admin note: Edited title. Please do not post threads or comments in all caps. This is against the Forum Rules. Thanks!

I'm struggling to figure out a way to take an entire PT section, 1-25, without taking the entire Practice Test. Does someone know how to filter it this way? I found an older post detailing it but I think the formatting of this website must've changed as I couldn't follow along

Currenly I have around -6 on LR section under time constraint, but after BR I can get to around -2. I realized the mistakes I can easily fixed and most time even marked is when I encounter MBT or Parrallel questions types which uses formal logic and for me requires diagraming as I am not used to formal logic yet.

I understand maybe to improve the speed on these questions requires time and practice but I also realize when I translate them into formal logic, they start to look like math to me and the meaning is lost. I do get the question right but I am worried with that my intuition will never get trained and I always have to waste time to translate those into math & diagram to get them correct, which might result in not finishing the section.

So my question is just on how I should practice those questions? Should I continue to diagram out each time, and my intuition will actaully grow with it? Or should I start trying out diagraming out in my head and apply more meaning to it? Would it faster for some people to actually diagram out during the actual exam?

Thank you for answering in advance.

Like in lesson 5 why can you not conclude that the conclusion could be morally right by using the contrapositive?

Hello, Im trying to review the quantifiers section in the Logic of Intersection set. I want to know the difference between the quiantity of each word. I remember I once saw a video here with a scale explaining the Number each word represents. Can someone Point me to that Lesson? Thank you in Advance!

An example in this post is from a live class so it MAY BE A SPOILER****

Hi! I am continuously running into issues with conclusions regarding sufficiency and necessity. I completely understand the structure of Lawgic, and I can chain conditionals with no issues using Lawgic, my issue is when sufficiency and necessity lead to a conclusion, and I cannot conclude the argument is valid or draw a conclusion. I can write it out correctly, I just don't understand what it really means..

Example:

Exercise 2: Evaluating Argument Validity

Is the following argument valid?

The vote to grant Chancellor Palpatine emergency powers will not pass if Senator Amidala delivers her speech. Amidala cannot deliver her speech unless the attempt to assassinate her fails. Her assassins planted a bomb on her starship but unbeknownst to them, she was not on the ship when the explosive detonated. Therefore, the vote to grant the Chancellor emergency powers will not pass.

The argument is not valid because of the Lawgic: (I have the structure down)

SAS → /P

SAS → AAF

AAF

/P

Where I am getting confused is the explanation that is provided: "Satisfying a necessary condition yields no valid conclusions." So when can we yield a valid conclusion?? What condition should I be looking at to conclude whether an argument is valid or not?

Another example:

Biologist: We know the following things about plant X. Specimens with fuzzy seeds always have long stems but never have white flowers. Specimens with curled leaves always have white flowers, and specimens with thorny seedpods always have curled leaves. A specimen of plant X in my garden has a long stem and curled leaves.

Q: From the biologist's statements, which one of the following can be properly inferred about the specimen of plant X in the biologist's garden?

I have all of the Lawgic correctly written down:

fuzzy seeds-> long stems

fuzzy seeds -> /white flowers

curled -> white flowers

thorny seedpods -> curled leaves

x has a long stem and curled leaves

The answer: it has white flowers but lacks fuzzy seeds.

HOW??

I understand it has white flowers, but how is it not "It has white flowers and thorny seedpods."

Is it because if there are curled leaves, then there are white flowers (curled leaves -> white flowers), the fact that having curled leaves is in the sufficient means that white flowers has to follow?

And thorny-> curled means nothing because curled is not in the sufficient?

If something is satisfied in the necessary, you can't conclude anything from that?

I have literally spent HOURS trying to understand this (and understanding other examples further down LR). I don't want to move past chaining conditionals until I can completely understand this, so I'm stuck in my studying. I'm actually struggling so hard. Also is it clear what I'm getting confused on... ?? I can re-edit if this is too all over the place sorry :(

Super vague question but how do you recommend to study for reading comprehension? I get like 16 problems wrong each time. I just always feel way too rushed to comprehend the text. I've got a good understanding of LR but lost of where to start with RC.

Trying to find a good resource to help work on my memorization of conditional indicators. Thanks!

Post your favorite LSAT question. Why do you like it?

I missing about 4-5 on an LR section, but about 2-3 of those are within the last 5 questions every time. Is there something that I am not picking up on?

I've been struggling the most with conditional reasoning questions, and have rewatched the lessons a couple times and done some drilling but still don't understand. I take the LSAT in a little over a month, does anybody have some suggestions for a quick way to improve on these?

Even though I'm going slow and parsing out passages, often times I get W, S, E questions wrong because I'm not making the same kinds of assumptions they make to get to that answer choice. Maybe it's also because I just started W,S,E questions like a week ago in the CC, so it's still a little new to me. What has helped you most with making reasonable assumptions? The assumptions explained in the lessons sometimes feel very arbitrary.

I know those questions are usually the curve breaker ones and I keep choosing the second most popular answer every single time... Any tips on how to approach this problem?

I just started studying for RC. Does anyone have any thoughts on whether it's best to (1) give myself extra time during drills so that I can "learn how to do it slow before learn how to do it fast," or should I (2) stick to the exact time that I'll have on test day so that I don't get too used to/comfortable with that extra time?

I'm not too sure what is the difference between weaken questions and flaw questions. If we're describing a flaw that the author makes in their reasoning, for example that they take for granted an assumption, then wouldn't it be that if this answer were true (like the unstated assumption was actually false), then this would weaken the argument since it would undermine the conclusion? I feel like the intent of these two questions kind of overlap, like is pointing out a flaw in the author's argument not the same thing as trying to weaken it?

For lawgic, Necessary_"is essential"Sufficient?

The category of questions in logical reasoning that I have had the most trouble with are parallel or analogy questions. I am wondering if it would be worthwhile to, upon coming across them in the test, flag these questions and move on and come back to them at the end of the section. The questions are massive time eaters and I feel like my time could be better spent elsewhere. And even still, I will be coming back to them at the end anyway. I'd love to hear of any insights into this. Thanks.

I'm two days into my LSAT studying and I'm on fundamentals. I'm planning to take the test on June 7 and once more in August if things don't quite go well. I think I have time for this. I just wanted to clarify if this is right:

Premises-Provide evidence

Conclusions-Rely on evidence in order to derive an opinion??

Admin note: Edited. Please do not post threads or comments in all caps. This is against the Forum Rules. Thanks!

This specific topic in LR is the one I struggle the most with, and I’m hoping someone has some helpful tips or advice on how to approach it. Any insights you can share would be greatly appreciated!

Hi Everyone, I have a question on the main conclusion portion. I read the question and then the paragraph, I know they hide the conclusion, I just struggle to find the keywords. Any advice for me to get faster with these questions?

When going through my wrong answers on a PT, I noticed the reason I got some questions wrong as opposed to others is that my brain gets lazy and neglects my steps when I encounter a stem with a topic I don't like (science) or understand. Are there any ways I can improve on this weakness?

I started out doing really good on weakening questions. When the strengthening questions came into play, they were a bit more difficult. Now that they are intermixing, I am extremely overwhelmed and confused. Any tips?

I'm having trouble translating without claims back into english after using logic. For example:

"There can be no rule of law without individual freedom"

Negate sufficient: ROL ---> IF

But when I read this back to myself, how would I frame it?

"If there is rule of law, then there is individual freedom?" Is that what would work here? Please help!!!