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".

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.

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/

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!

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!

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

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/

Is this the correct way to think about this stimulus?

Support: B implies conscience and agency+ nations don't have consciences+ families are not agents

Intermediate Conclusion: Groups are not the type of entity that can be worthy of praise or blame.

Main conclusion: Hence, etc....

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-89-section-2-question-16/

I posted this before but no one commented so I was wondering if there was a way to see explanation videos for substituted conditions in logic games? Or just some general help with them? I don't know how to answer them.

Hi guys, can someone please help break this argument down. Thanks a lot! :)

Admin note: edited title

Hello!

I'm looking for a mentor / coach to guide me through the ~month before I take the January LSAT.

My weakest section is LG.

I'm pretty strong in LR and RC but could use some fine-tuning.

My highest score on a PT was 174, but I've only crossed the 170 barrier once thus far. My average score is a 162.4.

Please DM me here or comment if you're able to coach/mentor me!

How do I become consistent in LR, when I do untimed and BR I get upwards of 4 wrong but sometimes I get 8 wrong when its timed. How do I bridge this gap and not lose my accuracy? Not restricted to any one question type.

I was able to narrow it down to B and D, but I am struggling to figure out why B is wrong?

Ok so I feel very confident at identifying these errors in conditional logic, however when they are in abstract terms in the flaw questions it slows me down because I get a little unsure.

I just took PT64.S3.Q4 and was stuck on a mistaken negation where the correct AC says: "does not present any evidence that the document names every member of the trade group"

How exactly does that indicate a mistaken reversal? I was stuck on this question for 2 minutes when I had the right answer selected by process of elimination the whole time.

What are the other common written examples that I should keep an eye out for? I'm looking for common answers or key words to look for that indicate: mistaken negation, mistaken reversal, as well as confusion of necessity versus sufficiency.

Are there any other than these three that I should be aware of?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-64-section-3-question-04/

Hello!

This questions is LR and QS ends in "logically completes the argument" making it a MSS or MC question (I believe MSS but I could be wrong about that.

"Rate of inflation and Rate of Return."

If anyone has a good understanding of the question and the answer choices, I am very lost as to how to get to the correct answer.

Thank you!

Could someone help me to see if I reasoned this out properly. This test really testing my patience in life. I didn't even know lake trout was a fish.

Conclusion: If anglers are looking for lake trout in deep temperate lakes while they are partially iced over the winter, their best bet is to avoid lake trout's summer haunts and fish for the shallow parts or close to the surface.

The premise tells us that there are four seasons:

Winter-the coldest water is at the top (goldmine for lake trout)

Late Winter- the "turnover" period when the coldest water is transitioning to the bottom

Summer-the coldest water is at the bottom (goldmine for lake trout)

Fall: another "turnover' where the cold water is cold water is transitioning up

Another premise: We can find lake trout in the coldest water.

If they're partially iced over the winter, it means they're not fully cold yet for anglers to find lake trout - and if the author is concluding that they avoid the summer haunts and fish for the shallow parts, it ought to be that when the deep temperate lake is partially iced, the coldest water is still at the top, and that the partially iced status isn't a full indicator of the turnover that's supposed to happen which will transport the cold water to the bottom.

A. I thought A could work but the stimulus doesn't address anything about the ease at which we could catch them. Whether it takes me 4 hours or 30 minutes to catch, this assumption doesn't need to hold because so long as I am able to catch my fish during the time of the year when they are expected to be abundant, then I'm good. The conclusion precisely advises anglers to avoid the summer haunts if they are looking to catch any lake trout in deep temperate lakes.

B. Heavy, light, denser, we don't care. I eliminated.

C. They are only found in deep tempreature lakes? Groundbreaking. Eliminate.

D. I literally do not care about how they feed. I want to know why the author is make such a specific recommendation. If their feeding habit was connected to their ability to get caught, we would take a second look. Because it's not, we gracefully, eliminate.

E. This is the last contestant in the running towards becoming my next top answer. As they are partially iced over the winter, the expectation is that the cold water is making its way to the bottom where I can get lake trout butttttttt the author is telling me to avoid it. Why? It ought to mean that the partial ice is a false alarm and that the cold water isn't ready yet to make its way to the bottom (summer) where lake trout can be found. If we negate this, "in deep temperate lakes with the ice residue, the turnover has occurred" which will put the coldest water at the bottom. That would mean the author is sabotaging us, and destroys the argument.

This question took me a good 30 minutes to break it down but typing it out actually help. Can anyone let me know if I overlooked anything. And more important, how do you quickly attack such a heavy stimulus under time constraints.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-80-section-1-question-17/

#help

So I was stuck between A and B. Had I not seen this was a 3/5 difficulty I would have chosen A without hesitation. I still choose A, but contemplated B quite a bit.

Can someone please explain how A is wrong and B is correct?

Thank you.

Hello,

This question took me a while to understand why A was not the answer. Anson concludes that Dr. Ladlow isn't a responsible psychologist. The question stem asks: "Anson bases his conclusion about Dr. Ladlow based on which of the following?"

A ) If anything, the attack on his character would be the conclusion, not the support for the conclusion. Furthermore, from what I understand a personal attack would be more along the lines of: "Dr. Ladlow smokes cigarettes; we shouldn't believe anything he says"; not a professional criticism.

B ) Is correct because it takes the general principle within the stimulus of that responsible psychologists need to consider the potential of evidence that could refute their own findings, which Dr. Ladlow fails to do. Thus by failing to adhere to a general principle, Anson states that Dr. Ladlow's incorrect.

C ) There's no ambiguous term within this stimulus.

D ) Anson doesn't dispute Dr. Ladlow's facts (i.e. that the Dr.'s theory about rats isn't correct, its just that Anson adds to the notion that he must also consider the possibly that it might NOT be correct)

E ) Anson doesn't reject the Dr.'s theoretical explanation.

For those who are supplementing their 7Sage Prep with The Loophole by Ellen Cassidy, our study group is going to be reviewing Prep Test 75 section 1 using this method. We will be sharing our translations on Tuesday 4/7 and then we are planning to going over the translations and CLIR as a group on Wednesday 5 pm Eastern time.

Here is the link to join our group:

https://groupme.com/join_group/57415632/QdTu0vK9

Both study sessions are added to the calendar and we will also be adding the Zoom link and Google drive link there as well.

Hopefully, this will be the first of multiple sessions. In addition, we have been having BR sessions weekly for various prep tests so if you are looking to improve your LR understanding or hoping to take the LSAT in the near future we would love for you to join us. All levels of prep are welcome, we also have a sub group for people still taking the CC.

can anyone help me the availability of the book "the loophole in LSAT logical reasoning" written by ELLEN Cassidy?

I stay in India, the book is unavailable on amazon, flipkart and other online websites.

I need a readable copy or atleast a PDF that can be printed.

the website of the publisher itself has not mentioned the international courier facilities for the book to reach me.

If there is anyone, with anyleads, I 'll be obliged.

thank you.

Instead of deleting submissions each time for each problem set: is there another way to re-doing them, where our new attempts are compared with our old ones?

Does anyone who has taken the Flex have a recommendation on a time slot to choose? I have been taking PT's usually around 12/1PM but not sure if its a good idea to continue doing that as I'm sure the volume will be higher during that time on test day, just trying to avoid any technical difficulties.

Any other Flex advice would be greatly appreciated!

Hey everyone, Across my studies, one thing that I have tried to do with LR is to look at arguments as repetitions of older forms of arguments. Trying to distill the argument in front of us down to something we are familiar with for me has been a real key to building my competence in LR. Competence leads to confidence, which shaves off time. Some of these forms are form that appear on nearly every exam: a sufficient/necessary confusion, the valid argument forms etc. Some are bit more rare.

My test dates are coming up (I’m scheduled to take both the July and the September exams) and I wanted to make a few posts about some specific (albeit rare) argument forms I have come across in my studies. This post will be dedicated to an argument form I have tentatively called the “tether” form. I am unaware of any other effort to specifically isolate and categorize this form or the others I have planned to post on in the coming weeks: although it is certainly possible that others closely studying the exam have indeed done so, maybe others have even named the form.

The basic analogy I want to build on here for the “tether” argument is this:

Imagine I have presented you with the following argument:

The New York Jets football team had an amazing record last year, after all, they finished with the same record as the Chicago Bears last year.

At bottom, I have tethered the claim in my conclusion to an unstated/unknown dock in the premise. A necessary assumption here would be that the Chicago Bears had an amazing record. Because the Jet and the Bears are both equal, if this assumption were not true, we would be tethering the Jets to a non-amazing record, which would defeat the argument. *_Note here to NFL fans, I am aware that in the real world this isn't exactly a necessary assumption because The Jets and Bears are in different divisions and the same record could be worth more in the AFC East etc, nice catch if you were thinking this, but: play along with the general gist of the argument for me please ;-) _

Going further: around this unstated assumption we can construct: weakening answer choices and strengthening answer choices. So in short, before we get into some examples: If I tell you that something is popular or great because it is similar to something else, I better have told you that that other things is popular or great, because by virtue of how a premise functions, I am “tethering” the subject of my conclusion to that in the premise.

Take a look at the structure of PT 56-3-10, where we have this very same outline slightly obscured by the usual LSAT tricks:

-Premise: because we have the same income from sales of t-shirts as these other series

-Conclusion: Our concert has popular appeal

With this knowledge in hand, we can see that what the argument has assumed is that the subject in which we have tethered the subject of our conclusion to in the premise, does indeed possess the property that we discussed in our conclusion.

Remember: because the Jets had the same record as the Bears, therefore the Jets had am amazing record.

We might also be asked to weaken this argument structure.

Pt 51-1-8

Here we conclude: sugar does not cause hyperactivity in population x

On the basis of: the behavior of sugar is tethered to the behavior of sugar substitutes.

Here, the credited response is simply a denial of the tethered assumption. In short: sugar is like a sugar substitute, therefore sugar does not do Y.

There is an infamous example that is slightly more complicated than the others on PT 37-1-19:

Here we have essentially “tethered” hatha yoga to traditional self help groups. And on the basis of that tethering, we conclude that hatha yoga is “powerful.”

There are other arguments that fit this form. These are just a few memorable examples.

In conclusion, my recommendation here would be to take the examples of this form of the argument and study them. Committing this form to memory takes only a few minutes of focused study and paid me dividends on PT 82, where I was able to spot a “tether” argument, answer it quickly and efficiently and move on to other questions that demanded more time from me. If you are able to do the same, please comment below with the question on PT 82 where the tether assumption is located: this is how you will know that you have successfully committed this form to memory. Carrying an understanding of a argument form forward is an important tool on the road to competence on LR.

David

Hi all! Hope you're having all having a good day.

I was wondering if you could share your tips on getting better at RC. I used to have consistent -6 and started moving downwards to -10 and now scored -14 on PT 65. I was pretty confident with reading when I started LSAT but now I am a bit short on time and really concerned about getting more than half of the questions wrong.

I do timed PT then read all the passages again during BR to come up with a better LR, HR. And clearly it seems like it's not working and I'd greatly appreciate any help. :)