As always mentioned in this discussion forum, the first 10 questions of the LR section are usually the easiest. I get to the last 5-10 and start really struggling. I am not sure if it is fatigue or difficulty of the questions. Any tips on this? I have seen that people say to follow your gut on the first 10 so you have more time with the last questions.

Competent----> have knowledge on the subject

"Only seasoned politicians are competent to judge"

Competent-----> seasoned politicians

What is the next step?

Does anyone have tips on how to tackle must be true questions when there is percentages/numbers involve because I'm having a hard time understanding why D is right

I am not understanding what answer choice D is saying. Can someone please explain it to me?

Hey all!

I got this question right almost immediately during timed, and during BR I changed it to C because I doubted myself.

I used to have a tendency to get rid of answer choices like A that use 'other' examples because I would immediately see them and think they were irrelevant. However, I am now beginning to notice myself improving at picking up on this subtle nuances in LR and just wanted to clarify if my reasons are correct for keeping it.

The reason I selected AC A is because it showed that at other companies when the cause isn't there (companies that don't offer free shipping), the effect isn't there (mail orders decreasing); therefore strengthening the causal link between these two factors which in turn strengthens our conclusion.

From a more broad perspective; I understand that everything in LR sort of depends on the situation, but generally when AC's refer to corroborating data (ie: using other - seemingly random - scenarios or situations to strengthen or weaken something) are they only relevant when they do something deliberate like that to strengthen the causal or correlative relationship? (Ie: by affirming that it's possible for something to happen because it happens somewhere else)

One last question: for AC C, I realize it is wrong because it reiterates something that we are trying to confirm. However, I was wondering if it would still be wrong even if it said something that didn't reiterate but just affirmed another correlation. (ie: 'the NUMBER of sales have increased since the policy change')

I guess what I'm asking is if an answer just affirms that another correlation happens, does this strengthen an argument (even a little?) my opinion would be know because we are trying to prove causation and what would a bunch of random correlations tell us, but please correct me if I'm wrong!

Sorry if anything was worded weirdly lol I was sort of figuring everything out in my head as I was typing.

Thanks for any help with this!

Admin Note:* https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-66-section-4-question-12/

Does anyone have any advice for getting my LG score down from a consistent -2 to -0? I have already foolproofed games from PTs 1-50 but can't seem to get perfect scores consistently. I occasionally get -0 but my most frequent and average score is -2. Is there anything I can do besides continuing to take practice tests and reviewing/redoing the games? I have been stuck in this range since September and am not sure what else I can do.

Could someone explain exactly what L is doing in response to S's argument? I thought both were interpreting access in different ways, for S it was about access to high tech care and for L it was about access to basic healthcare. I just feel that there is some sort of disjoint between the two arguments; does L even address S's argument at all?

Why is D incorrect? Can't it indicate the footprints were incomplete?

Hi All,

Has anyone recently taken PT 79? I found the RC to be incredibly difficult, I basically ran out of time on the last passage. Has anyone has a similar experience? I am normally -3/-4 on RC but this was extremely discouraging.

Why is the administrator's argument weak? Is it because she is trying to base her conclusion (pilots make mistakes in 1 in 2 million flight landings) on the flight reports and it's not as precise as actual footage of the flights? (air traffic control tapes?)

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-80-section-1-question-16/

LSAC hasn't sent out options for scheduling your time slot for Jan LSAT-flex, right? I remember the September LSAT I took, I'd received scheduling options by the 15th-- Just wanna make sure I'm not missing something.

I'm looking for advice/resources for getting to -0 in the RC Section. I'm very consistently getting -3 on RC sections and am typically missing the "curve-breaker" questions. I usually finish all the questions but don't have time to go back and review the harder questions. What's the best way to drill these harder RC questions? Do I need to just improve my speed on easier questions?

Thanks in advance for any advice!

Sorry, I don't know where to find the videos for this. Or is there a specific space on this site with videos of students completing RC passages? I'm looking for some examples of low resolution summarizing or notetaking.

What is the difference between these 2 arguments?

1.

It is heavily raining

Thus, traffic will be bad

2.

It is heavily raining

The ground is wet

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You could say the second argument “flows” better or is more "supported"; however these labels are skin deep and do not get to the heart of what makes a good argument.

A good argument is one where when the premise is true, the conclusion is highly likely or certain to be true.

A useful technique is to think about when the premise is true, can you think of more possible worlds where the conclusion is true, or are there more possible worlds where the conclusion is false?

We reason with our imagination and past experience. For example, in evaluating the first argument, I draw upon all the times I have experienced heavy rain. Sure, some of those times traffic has become backed up, but not every time. Moreover, the rain probably was not the cause of the traffic-- the traffic would have happened anyways.

I can think of more times and imagine more hypothetical worlds where rain is heavy and traffic is normal. Thus the premise being true does not really correlate with the conclusion being true.... so the argument is weak.

A good argument contains a premise that when true, means that the conclusion is more likely than not to also be true.

For the second example, I have trouble thinking of a world where it could rain heavily and the ground does not get wet. Drawing on my experience and imagination, every time it rains heavily, the ground must get wet. When the premise is true, the conclusion is extremely likely to be true.... so we have a good argument.

Another way to think about it is viewing the premise as an input. When that input is true, how often do we get the conclusion or output? Do not be afraid to use your imagination!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Two More Points:

Strengthening/Weakening questions merely ask you to take the premise (or input) and increase/decrease the likelihood that it will produce the output. For example, to strengthen the first argument, we would just say that water greatly inhibits vehicle speed and handling. If this is true, the input becomes more likely to yield the output or conclusion.

Good reasoning is human nature and evolutionarily advantageous. Those who can see connections and properly anticipate the future better than others are more successful. For example, if you can make the connection that sun causes crop growth, you can manipulate the world to your benefit. However If you reason poorly, thinking that interpretative dance creates crop growth, you will not have many crops and will be disadvantaged!

Also, I will be available again for tutoring between now and February when my courses start back up. My apologies to those who reached out via DM the past couple months, 1L chaos prevented me from being able to keep up with my inbox.

I am having trouble with consistency in LR sections. Some days I will take a PT and go -3 to -5 on the LR sections, and other times (like today PT 84 section 2) I will get -12... I am wondering if anyone has figured out a method that helped them do constantly well in LR.

#help

I liked B and D as answer choices. Why is D irrelevant? I've read online explanations that stated it isn't relevant whether or not the dinosaur found was related to the T-rex, but why is that? If the recently discovered dino was related to T.rex, wouldn't that weaken the connection between having T-rex features (oversized head, etc) and needing these features to accommodate their great size?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-80-section-4-question-22/

#help why is the answer A and not E?

Hello everyone, I am looking for the right Logical Reasoning Tutor. I know that 7sage has a list of tutors, but the ones I have contacted thus far are completely booked or I have yet to receive any response. If anyone is available, please reach out to me.

Hello.

I am studying, in particular, the logic games section. As I am watching the reviews for the games by J.Y, I am noticing that almost all the games can be divided in two ways in their approach.

One of them is where you make the sub game boards and find out all the possibilities before going to the questions while the other approach is making only one gameboard, and then going straight to the questions.

My question is, how do you know whether you should just go to the questions, or just try to get as much sub-game boards without taking up too much time?

Is this just something you naturally pick up as you familiarize yourself with the questions? Or are there more concrete signs that the game is a, as J.Y puts it, a "rules driven game".

Hi everyone! I am taking the January LSAT flex and had a quick question about score conversions on PT's. When I get my actual score back after taking a PT, I usually go look at the "score conversion" beneath in and find that specific PT with my matching number of incorrect answers. However, there is a wide gap between those two scores. For example, I just took PT 70 and made a 163 actual score, but the conversion score is a 169. Which score is correct?

Thanks!

So I just don't see how this stimulus is flawed

From the conditional statement: squeaking sound---> machine turned on, why can't we conclude that if the machine usually makes a squeaking sound, the machine is not usually turned on?

And what are the differences between D and E?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-89-section-2-question-22/

To current law students / law school grads: how have the analytical lessons from Logic Games transferred over to your work?

I’m confident LG will help me as a law student (although right now how it will help me still belongs to this abstract mist of “it’s good for me, just keep your head down, and keep doing it!”), but I’m curious how exactly. If anyone who is now doing something law-related has been seeing the effects of their LG training (the spatial elements of LG, manipulating rules, etc) play out in their law-related lives, I’m curious to hear your thoughts!

After reading this stimulus, I thought the author was assuming the dire wolves were trapped in the tar pits while hunting and scavenging. Is that correct? I was confused about the use of language in answer choice D; what does most frequently actually mean? I tried negating it and it still didn't strike me as correct? Is "most frequently" synonymous with typically or usually?

Help.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-89-section-2-question-07/

Why is the answer B and not C?

What is the best strategy for the final month? Looking for as much detail as possible.