My reading comprehension is ok (miss 5-10), try as I might I cant seem to get my score up, so I am starting to think outside the box to broaden my familiarity with different topics. Luckily science is not bad for me however, I struggle with the art and humanities passages. So I was wondering if there are any outside reading materials that would be beneficial. I know the Economist is a good one however, their subscription is pretty expensive. I did look at the New Yorker, and Scientific America but would like to know if there are others out there of a similar caliber. Please let me know

Hey everyone...

I'm only about a quarter of the way through the curriculum, so perhaps this is discussed later in the courses, but after being confused with how group 3 and 4 interact, I sought out explanations as to how to combine rules and ultimately settled on just following the rules as JY presented them...

However, that led me to thinking of examples where this might not hold true, and I came up with the following example which combines group 1 and group 3, based on the example from the cheatsheet:

All horses are strong, unless they have been drugged.

Obviously, grammatically this isn't a complicated sentence, so I suspect it is something we would see fairly frequently on the LSAT. That being said, I'm curious how we tranlslate a more complicated sentence like above? What I came up with was:

All: group 1, sufficient

All horses: H

are strong: S

H-->S

/S-->H

unless: group 3, negate sufficient

unless they have been drugged: D

At this point, it seems like if we treat the first statement, "All horses are strong" as X, and "unless then have been drugged" as Y, then we should have /Y-->X

Therefore, is the following correct?

/D-->H-->S

/S-->/H-->D

If it is not a horse that is strong, then it has been drugged.

Please #help?

Hi,

Below are two answer choices of a method of reasoning question.

(I don't quite remember which PT they are from exactly; they were transcribed here from my LSAT language journal.)

[A] demonstrates a certain principle is untenable on its own terms.

[B] shows that the idea should not be taken since doing so leads to an undesirable consequence.

I am okay with B whereas it's very difficult for me to reverse engineer an argument suitable for A.

Q1 Could someone help formulate such an argument?

Q2 Could someone explain what does it mean by "untenable on its own terms"?

Many thanks,

Leon

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

Is it possible to brute force most of the time instead of making worlds? Is it possible to just make inferences/deductions and go for the questions. Some times I can make worlds and it makes sense but some other times, I'll watch and rewatch JY's videos and the worlds don't stick with me. What should I do? Just go about it the way that feels most comfortable and use the videos as a guide or just try and train my mind to how he teaches it?

Thanks

I've been averaging -3 per LR section, though sometimes I do as well as -1 and other times I hit -5.

I find that I've been getting a lot faster. I'm able to finish the first 10 questions in about 8.5 minutes and I can comfortably finish the first 15 questions in 15 minutes. I'm now able to save about 5 minutes at the end of the section to review my flagged questions. I find that this isn't enough time to thoroughly review my flagged questions, and I often end up getting the flagged questions wrong.

I also find that I'm more often getting the 4-star (according to 7Sage) questions wrong than the 5-star ones, although I do miss some "curve-breaker" questions. When I do get a question wrong, it is almost always due to one of three general reasons: (1) a careless mistake that I can easily correct in Blind Review; (2) I picked the second most attractive AC; (3) I just have no idea where to even start with the question, or what the argument is saying. (3) is quite rare.

For those of you who are able to get -1 to -0 consistently:

What is your timing strategy? 25 in 25, or something even more aggressive? How much time do you save to review your flagged questions? How many questions do you skip in the first round?

Do you read all the answer choices? I find that, for many of the early questions (Q1-Q10), I can just hunt for the correct answer choice and then move on. This saves me quite a lot of time overall, because reading the other 4 answer choices to confirm that they are indeed incorrect can take me anywhere from 10 seconds to 30 seconds per question.

Most of the time I don't make any mistakes in these early questions, but from time to time I'll get 1-2 questions wrong in Q1-Q10 mostly due to carelessness. In your opinion, is it ever worth examining the other answer choices in the early questions? Should I at least skim each of the other answer choices, even if I don't linger on them? What level of certainty do you aim for before moving on from a question? At what point in the section do you start paying more attention to each of the answer choices, giving each one a closer look?

What is your advice for getting from where I am now to -0 to -1 consistently? How do I get more consistent? Are there any strategies you would recommend? Should I push my speed even more for the early questions?

J.Y. often says that no one can realistically aim for -0 in a LR section consistently, because it's just really hard to do and heavily dependent on luck. Has this been true in your experience?

Thank you all!

The purpose of this post is to share what I believe to be a helpful tip/strategy in the context of RC within the LSAT FLEX.

It can be tried by those who are looking to improve their RC scores or improve the consistency of their RC performance through a new strategy. I am certain it will not work for all, but I am equally confident that it is likely to be helpful to some. I would like to know the thoughts of test takers who have done (or give it a try after reading this) and to hear their feedback. Thanks!

Recently I have begun reading RC questions before getting into the passage as a new strategy to see how it would effect performance. In my so far experience, it has yielded positive results, including -0 scores in RC. Afterwards I searched online for general advice and to my surprise most sources recommended against this on the basis that "it is difficult for most people to remember multiple questions while reading through an RC passage." I believe this premise may no longer be true for the following reasons.

1.) Reading the questions first can prime your memory for what is important in the RC and help you read through 'fluff' faster.

2.) Total memorization isn't necessary. Partial, functional memorization can be helpful, and could be possible for many.

3.) Most sources that I found arguing against reading the RC Questions first predate the LSAT Flex. We now have the ability to do something that analog test takers could not. Use "Ctrl + F" to search for the key terms from the questions in the passage. Do it and quickly highlight them before reading the passage. For anyone unaware, using "Ctrl +F" is allowed by LSAC and is possible to do on official PTs and on the LSAT Flex itself.

I find that the above strategy can be quite helpful especially in denser passages. It to helps you focus on what is and is not important to pay attention to. To qualify what I mean by reading the questions first, I mean skimming them quickly looking for key terms/excerpts that they will ask you to either define, explore the relationship of, or make an inference about. Since you can use "Ctrl+F" to find these terms in the passage, you could highlight them right away and trust that the text in relation to these terms may be highly relevant. From there, you can speed through the passage and understand the general message for big picture questions, and spend more time on the areas that you have marked and that you know shall be helpful in ascertaining correct answers.

I'm going through the Loophole in Logical Reasoning book now and there are several pages dedicated to the indicator "unless." Loophole specifies that you must make the target of "unless" the necessary condition, and the sufficient condition is "the way things always are." But 7Sage loops "unless" in (with what Loophole would call "either/or") with Group 3 and says you just have to choose either half of the conditional, make it the sufficient condition, and negate it.

Does the extra distinction in Loophole matter? i.e. is 7sage too broad on "unless"?

Basically, how do you study for the Logical Reasoning using a strategic and structured method akin to the foolproof method? I am currently focused on Foolproofing but will be start back on LR soon. I have already finished the CC a while ago and was consistently getting around -8 which was my starting point anyway. I also have the Loophole and will go over it one more time since I rushed through it back in November. I would like to know what other effective strategies people have been using for LR before I start focusing on the section again.

Hi everyone

I have already registered for FebLSAT but Im 5 point away from the grade that I want, and I cant improve by 5 point in less than a month. I was thinking if I don't take LSAT in Feb and take it for the first time in April, Is it going to stay FLEX after April or not? Do you guys have any thoughts about this ?

JY mentioned that a good way to approach RRE Questions would be to view them as weakening questions by negating the last premise / including a new conclusion and then finding the AC that most weakens the new argument.

While this works for regular RRE questions, i'm struggling to apply the method to EXCEPT questions and questions in which there isn't a paradox.

Any advice would be extremely appreciated as this is the question type I struggle with the most.

^ #help

I'm taking the April lsat (11 weeks away) and I'm in the final 2 months of my studies where I'm honing/cleaning up and just taking PTs.

Up until this point I've been doing 4 section PTs. Should I just only do flex PTs from now on? Been mostly doing 4 sections for the extra LR section because I feel like I can always learn from it. What do you all think?

Referring to Pacifico's classic post on studying for logic games, Pacifico mentions going through LG from prep tests 1-35 repeatedly until you reach a level of mastery. Is this still a good method or are recent logic games different enough that you have to practice with sooner games?

I am just starting my LSAT journey and I am not quite sure how things are looking as of now.

I know that BR is absolutely crucial with LR but how crucial is it with LG? I am just starting out so I am no where near finishing a game on time, so I tend to do the games with unlimited time. Should I go back and review it in this cases?

Q22 is sufficient assumption. It says:

The ONLY recordings that go to CD are those that companies believe will sell well enough to be profitable

It concludes: Most classic jazz records will not be put on CD b/c few classic jazz recordings are played on radio

[contra: transfer to CD ---> believe will sell well enough ]

so far so good? I'm having trouble translating answer choice E

No recording that is not played on radio is one that record companies believe would be profitable

recording played on radio -----> believe it would be profitable on CD

So it becomes:

Jazz ---m---> on radio ---> on CD ----> believe it will sell well enough to be profitable

Is that correct?

Admin Notee: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-45-section-4-question-22/

Hi!

I am really struggling with how to negate conditional statements when they appear in the answer choices of necessary assumption questions.

For instance, a few that appeared in recent LSATs.

PT71 S1 Q22: Answer Choice E: Any pricing practice that does not result in unreasonable prices should be acceptable.

The Powerscore Logical Reasoning Bible says to add a "not" to negate, but I'm not sure where to add the not. Also, does any turn into some?

PT73 S4 Q26: Many farmers will not grow green manure unless they abandon the use of chemical fertilizers.

PT77 S4 Q26: (wrong answer choice): Sea Creatures have rarely if ever, wreaked ecological havoc in a new habitat unless they have been able to survive in that habitat after having been deposited by oceangoing ships.

Each time I struggle with such answer choices because I am unsure of how to negate them.

Thanks!

Admin Note:

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-71-section-1-question-22/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-73-section-4-question-26/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-77-section-4-question-26/

Hello all! I am desperate to take the writing sample ASAP - I took the Jan 2021 LSAT. I just logged on to use the Get Acquainted app through LSAC, but got super freaked out by how real it felt. Did I just exit out of the actual Writing section? I had to show ID, room (which, like, literally I was about to do the sample from my bed lol) and close out other applications etc. Is that really a practice test? If so, for those of you who have done it, did it help?

Hi there, #help please

How would you contra-pose MOST?:

X --most-- Y

would it be:

Y --most-- X

OR

Y←some→X

As an example: PT45.S4.Q16

contra-positive of 2:

OR

Both would give us answer choice (E), Less than most people can find happiness outside of personal relationships

Thanks!

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-45-section-4-question-16/

What is the stimulus saying??

Hi,

Can someone please enlighten me on why answer choice C is wrong and why E is not just a restatement of the argument?

Thank you in advance!

Hello! I am having trouble with when to chain statements and when to not. I am doing PT61.S4.Q25

Stimulus: There can be no individual freedom without the rule of law, for there is no individual freedom without social integrity, and pursuing the good life is not possible without social integrity.

My question:

Do I chain the first two statements? or are they separate and cannot be chained?

A) Individual Freedom ---> Rule of Law ---> Social Integrity

OR

B)

Individual Freedom ---> Rule of Law

Individual Freedom ---> Social Integrity

How do you know when it should be chained vs when it should be individual?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-61-section-4-question-25/

Someone try to use a whiteboard during the flex and let me know if they allowed it...it's honestly revolutionizing to use a whiteboard on the logic games lol :D

I am really bad at Point at Issue and Flaw questions. I have drilled them over and over again, and yet they are the questions I consistently miss every time. I have familiarized myself with an exhaustive list of flaw types. But I just cannot seem to pick out the right flaw, or match it to the answer choices. With Point at Issue, I just never am able to choose between 2-3 ACs that look pretty close. Any advice?? How do you reliably approach these problems?

I have a question on wording.

If a statement says something along the lines of: Physics students are more likely to do well on the LSAT than Chemistry Students.

Does this indicate correlation or causation? Specifically, what does the phrase "more likely" mean on the LSAT in such contexts.

Another question: As "x" increases, y increases. --> does this indicate correlation or causation?

I have been so confused on this. Thank you so much

Hello! I'm taking my first LSAT ever this April and want to be sure that I'm well-prepped equipment/tech wise. Quite a few people mentioned they had tech issues using a Mac with ProctorU and this is making me extremely NERVOUS!

Can you please share your experience and any tips/insight you have? I wonder if I need to borrow a PC laptop from someone for exam day. Thank you!