nvm lol

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

In PT 13, Section 4, Question 7, when Murray says "You are wrong to make this claim", does he mean that the claim being made is wrong? It is one thing to claim that a statement is wrong( false) and another to claim that the person making it is in the wrong. For example, one can say something that is factually accurate but at an inappropriate time. This makes the the person in the wrong but has no actual relevance on the truthfulness of the statement. I think this distinction is very relevant to answering the question, though not absolutely necessary.

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

The stimulus opens with a question, (Is it correct for the gov't to abandon efforts to determine toxicity levels in food supply?) and the next sentence is the answer. How is the answer to that question the MC when the following sentence begins with "however"? In this context, does "however" NOT indicate a change from context to argument? "Furthermore" in the next sentence indicates an additional premise. But, I also see a complex sentence -indicated by the semicolon. Is what follows after the semicolon the main conclusion? What am I missing or reading too deeply into?

#help

LR still doesn't seem to be clicking for me. My goal is to be -1/0 in this section and I have heard a lot of positive things about Ellen Cassidy's Loophole book.

For those of you that have read it and tried other resources before you bought the book, what were your results and would you recommend it?

I only have the last few chapters left of Powerscore's LR Bible. I already read the stimulus first and aim to understand it first before I even read the question stem. I think most of my errors come in misunderstanding the answer choices, but sometimes I just have a conceptual misunderstanding when reading the stimulus too. Recently, I've been getting as many as -8/-9 wrong in a section. I've tried doing a few "blind verbal translation drills" because I saw them described and advocated for somewhere on this forum. I'm not under 20 minutes yet (most recent: 28 min with 4- poor, 3-ok, 9-good, 10 great. My system: GREAT = Concl. and all premises correct, GOOD = 1 premise slightly incorrect (on a multi-premise question), OK = 2 premises slightly incorrect, or concl. half correct, POOR = concl. Incorrect, or more than 2 premises incorrect)

Also, the trend I see with questions I get wrong: SA, Flaw, and NA.

I didn't complete all of 7Sage CC. I am a LSAC fee waiver recipient, so money is an issue and thought I would come here and get feedback before I made the investment on the Loophole book or paid the full price for a month of 7Sage CC.

If you have any general LR advice/guidance on what I should do, that would be much appreciated!

Thanks for your time :)

Hi folks,

I'm wondering what to do after I do blind review specifically for RC. For LR and LG, I watch JY's videos for questions I missed even after BR. I usually learn a lot from watching JY's videos and see the error of my logic from when I BR'd. But with RC, I watch JY's videos and don't really learn much. I understand why I got the question wrong, but it doesn't inform how I do on the next RC section. I feel like I'm not getting from it what I need to.

Anyone have advice/tips on what they do for RC review?

Thanks!

I know this is invalid reasoning, but it was one of the most popular incorrect answer choices so I'd like to see it diagrammed

Sarah's dog is not a dachshund, for he hunts very well, and most dachshunds hunt poorly.

SD---> HVW

D--m-- /HVW

C: SD---> /D

Aren't there two main ways to weaken an argument? Either by going for the premises (contradicting them) or showing why the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from them? I thought C did the first, but now I am having doubts. The stimulus concludes that oil rigs have no adverse (or harmful) effect on wildlife because when the areas near oil rigs and control sites several miles away were compared, no significant differences were found. When C mentions there was "contamination from sewage and industrial effluent," could I assume those pollutants came from the oil rigs or not? And does this choice contradict the premise that there were differences between the sites near the oil rigs and control?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-18-section-2-question-06/

Hi Everyone, I am getting every other question type correct on LR except the ones above. This ranges from 5-8 Questions I miss per LR section and I am missing 2-3 on RC that are also MBT or some variation. I am only missing these questions and they are holding me back from a higher score. I am begging for any tips or YouTube videos on these question types. Thank you!

Anyone interested in a study buddy for June's exam? I really just need someone talk to who's also wanting to do well on this LSAT for support, commiserate, motivation, etc. We could do groupme or really anything.

I am really struggling with this method of reasoning question. Can any one explain why the answer is E?

Admin note: edited title

This is a weakening question so my goal is to cast doubt on T's conclusion that the footprints were made by hominids

The evidence R has against T's conclusion is that in order for the footprints they both observed at site G to be made by hominids, they would have had to have walked in a cross-stepping manner. When I first read this , I still thought it was a possibility these footprints were still made by hominids; maybe the hypothetical hominids in question chose to walk in that odd manner or did so by accident? So I couldn't come up with a precise pre-phase but went into the choices trying to see if there was something that could strengthen R's evidence.

I get that B weakens T's conclusion because it suggests the footprints were made by a bear walking normally instead of cross walking humans, but what is wrong with C? Is C incorrect because it strengthens T's conclusion? And why is D incorrect? wouldn't it be problematic for T's conclusion if the footprints they were looking at were incomplete?

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]."

I'm trying to book a hotel for the June 2021 test, but LSAC still has TBD on the actual test date. The only info I see is "starting June 12". Does anyone know how soon LSAC releases the actual date before the test? Thanks!

Hey guys,

I need help understanding this statement. There are two ways I can see it play out.

What do you guys think?

Argument 1:

"Seniority shall lapse only for the following reasons: Resignation, discharge for sufficient and just cause; and absences as a result of a disability, sickness or accident, for a period of twenty-four(24) consecutive months."

Reason 1: Resignation, discharge for sufficient and just cause;

(Quitting or being fired for a just cause)

Reason 2: and absences as a result of a disability, sickness or accident, for a period of twenty-four(24) consecutive months.

(Being out of work due to a disability, sickness or accident longer than 24 months)

Comma- a punctuation mark (,) indicating a pause between parts of a sentence. It is also used to separate items in a list and to mark the place of thousands in a large numeral.

Semi-colon- a punctuation mark (;) indicating a pause, typically between two main clauses, that is more pronounced than that indicated by a comma.

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/semicolon/

Watch this video, my point is from 1:15 – 1:35. It explains that it is a serial list which means explains that reason 1 is separate from reason 2”

Argument 2

“Seniority shall lapse only for the following reason: resignation,discharge for sufficient and just cause; and absences as a result of a disability, sickness or accident, for a period of twenty-four (24) consecutive months.”

(A)Seniority shall lapse----> (B)R, DSJC and; RD, S or A, for a period of 24 months

My argument is that “, for a period of twenty-four consecutive months” modifies the entire necessary condition. If one left for any reason stated in the necessary condition then they’re entitled to seniority as long as it’s with in 24 months.

Every time I do a timed LG session for some reason I panic and always end up solving 2 questions, but when I do the BR, it takes me less time to do the questions and it becomes very easy, I make better inferences and understand the material better. I don't know what's causing this, HELP!

Hello, so I was working through the conditional logic translation quizzes and came across this sentence: "Businesses do the environmentally "right" thing only if doing so makes good business sense."

I recognized that "only if" is in group 2, and makes what is after it a Necessary condition. What tripped me up is that I thought "doing so" was a referential phrase to "environmentally "right" thing." Thus, I thought that "only if" was directly working on "doing the environmentally right thing." So my lawgic translation was Good business sense --> Environmentally right thing.

However, this is wrong. It should be Environmentally Right Thing --> Good Business Sense

Why should the referential phrase of "doing so" stay as a necessary condition and not be expanded to "environmentally right thing" making "makes good business sense" the sufficient condition?

Proposals for extending the United States school year to bring it more in line with its European and Japanese counterparts are often met with the objection that curtailing the schools' three month summer vacation would violate an established United States tradition dating from the nineteenth century. However, this objection misses its mark. True, in the nineteenth century the majority of schools closed for three months every summer, but only because they were in rural areas where successful harvests depended on children's labor. If any policy could be justified by those appeals to tradition, it would be the policy of determining the length of the school year according to the needs of the economy.

That bold and italicized sentence is what I think is the main conclusion. And the rest that follows it are the premises, but I don't understand why the author of this stimulus think the objections are "missing their mark." If someone could respond, that would be great.

I was stuck between A, B, and C lol

Someone please save me. I chose A because the author is assuming that freedom is worth more than anything else, even more than your life and I feel like A is catching onto to that by saying there could be other things of higher value (like your life in this situation) and the other can't just say 1 thing is paramount at the expense of everything else. Flaw Q are my worst in LR.

Thanks 7Sage!

I took the April Flex and have took over 15 PTs and numerous problem sets. I am still missing -8 to -13 per RC section. I have tried the low res and high res method which I believe slows me down. What can I do to bridge this gap?

All I gotta say is... yikes. Well bellow my 7sage PT median. I had a troubling proctor experience and this is my first take, although I take full responsibility for my score (149). My goal score was a 158+. It was incomprehensible for me to even score in the 140's. Anyways, I'm curious how everyone is feeling with their scores. With this shaping up to be an extremely competitive cycle, there's no time to waste. I will begin studying for the June exam this weekend.

Any advance, words of encouragement, or personal experiences with receiving a score so unexpectedly low would be appreciated. As a first gen 0L, I don't have people in my circle to speak to about this. Thanks all!

Hello everyone,

Probably like most of you i have spent the least amount of time studying in RC. I am embarrassed to admit that after a few blind review practice tests my average is -18. I have tried reading for structure like most explanation videos encourage to do but still hasn't helped much. Quite frankly I rarely understand what the hell i'm reading even when i take 6-8 minutes reading the prompt. I'm obviously completely misunderstanding this section of the test and am hoping someone can point me in the right direction as to where to go from this point. I would love to improve at least 10 points ASAP

I have read the explanation on this question and am still having trouble.

P1: Sometimes a reader believes that a poem is expressing contradictory ideas

P2: No one ever means to communicate contradictory ideas

Conc: Meaning does not equal author's intention

I understood that the assumption rested somewhere in the fact that what the reader understood is not necessarily what the author intended to communicate.

However, the answer choice linked what the reader understood to the meaning of the poem. Even if it is true that what the reader believes is in fact the meaning of the poem, that would mean that the poem is contradictory. Because no one, including the author means to express contradictory ideas, wouldn't you only be able to conclude that the author didn't mean to express contradictory ideas? How can you conclude that meaning is not the same as the authors intention (it never says that meaning can't be contradictory, only that people don't intend to communicate contradictory ideas... what if they did by accident?)

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-57-section-2-question-24/

What was the whole process of taking LSAT FLEX? If you moved around a little (but still remained in the camera), would they accept that? Is there anything we need to download or do before the exam date? How does the writing sample work? I read from some places, we can take out own time to write the writing sample starting August exam, is this true? Also, what is the best advice during the test date, things to get ready or things to remember?

Any advice would be highly appreciated! - Thanks in advance!

Hello! Curious to know what people are reading to prep for the range of passages on the RC? Specifically science, law, history type passages.

I know the New Yorker, Economist, are suggested — anything else? (E.g. Longform articles)

I am signed up for the June LSAT and I think I really messed up. I don't feel ready for it, my logical reasoning section is all over the place. A month ago I was scoring -6 and I have been getting progressively worse, my last test was -15. I have read advice about this problem in different discussion forums already. In addition to going through some fundamental lessons. I also don't study for very long each day, maybe 3 hours max? So, I feel that maybe it's not a good idea to take a break... Although, I would be willing to do whatever it takes to fix this problem. If anyone has an advice, that would be great!

Hi, so I need some advice on how to improve my RC score. I have extra time on the test (1.5x) so timing is not the issue. It is more that I have trouble eliminating answer choices, especially when I have it narrowed down to 2 answers. Any advice about this, or reading the actual passage, would help greatly. Thanks!!! #help