Hello all, I'm having a bit of trouble parsing out the language I find in any NA question stimulus. I often have to take bullet notes or diagram, which can be a waste of time on test day. Anyone have tips on how to parse out the language in a quicker manner? Many thanks in advance! I also understand that a NA is what has to be true if the conclusion is true (read from Ellen Cassidy Loophole). But I've also had a tutor tell me that an NA question is a premise that will make the conclusion potentially valid. So, I understand what a necessary assumption is, but I can't quite grasp the concept fully.

Mistaking sufficiency/necessity flaw

I've been making steady progress on the flaw/descriptive weakening portion of the curriculum however something just isn't clicking with "the oldest trick in the book." The PT30 S4 Q14 wrecked me and it's especially frustrating because I had the flaw anticipated but I just couldn't make sense of what I suspected was the correct answer choice.

I think I need to go back to the drawing board and review the core lessons on sufficiency and necessity because it's not coming very naturally in terms of translating it all back to English especially when denial of the sufficient or necessary happens. I was wondering if anyone had some of those lessons bookmarked because I can't seem to find the ones I remember doing awhile ago and if anyone had any recommendations on dealing with these issues that might've worked for them?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-30-section-4-question-14/

.

Curious whether people on here tend to read the stimulus first and then the the question stem or the scan the question stem for type of question, then read the stimulus. The people I've studied with tend to feel strongly about their particular approach. If you switched over, what led you to make the switch?

In lesson 16 of 18, we are told that "some people say" is not part of the argument, but in the explanation to Exercise 3 in Lesson 16, we are told the phrase does introduce the author's argument. Could we get a definitive answer from 7Sage or LSAC about this seeming contradiction?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/quiz-advanced-premise-conclusion-identification-1-answers/

Hi everyone- any tips on the Powerful vs. Provable framework in helping to eliminate the answer choices? Loophole mentions this but it's a bit confusing. Can anyone try to break this trick down? In terms of question type and how powerful/provable AC either should be eliminated or be the correct one?

Thanks

Can Could Be True answer choices actually be "Must Be True"?

I just did PT47, Section 4, Game 3. Question 14 in this game has a Could Be True question stem but the answer choice actually has to be true.

Logically speaking, if something must be true, then it could be true. So the logic goes: MBT –> CBT, and not the other way around. Just because an answer choice could be true does not necessarily mean that it has to be true. For example, suppose A and B could go into slot 1. “A goes into slot 1” is then a Could Be True answer choice, but it doesn’t have to be true, because B could also go into slot 1.

But if we suppose that only A could go into slot 1, then “A goes into slot 1” is then a Must Be True answer choice, and it could also be true.

Can someone tell me if this understanding is correct?

I don't recall ever seeing a Could Be True question where the correct answer choice actually must be true. Does anyone know if this is something that happens in other, more recent games? Or is this a phenomenon that we see only rarely and with the older games, like this one?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-47-section-4-game-3/

Are there any phrases/key words/types of the rules I should be on the lookout for on the LG section? How do you guys know when to split a gameboard? Thanks in advance!

Hi everyone. RC is one of my best sections; I score no more than -3 per RC section. I will be hosting a free RC session today on Zoom at 6pm PST. If you're interested, you are definitely welcome to join. Please leave a comment below indicating interest.

We'll be utilizing the RC from PT 74. There will be two Zoom links. We will be using the first one first and then we'll be hoping over to the second one.

FIRST

Zoom Meeting (6:00 to 6:40 PST)

https://us05web.zoom.us/j/84762661546?pwd=bGNJNXQwb3Q0RTNIZUIwQ0o3UnFiZz09

Meeting ID: 847 6266 1546

Passcode: 0B2Y0C

SECOND

Zoom Meeting (6:41 to 7:21 PST)

https://us05web.zoom.us/j/88355805299?pwd=UmtmelhTWUZReHp4Q1RvREZidkFxZz09

Meeting ID: 883 5580 5299

Passcode: Q0kW0e

Hi,

I recently restarted my journey of studying for the LSAT. I realized that i'm having a hard time understanding the early grammar lessons. I've done both quizzes and have gotten a lot of them wrong. I moved to Canada when I was 4.5 years old so I am fluent in English so no idea why I'm having such a hard time grasping this information. Any advice on how to break down the sentences. I understand what subject, predicate and details mean but when it comes to using this information on the actual sentences I mess up.

Thanks!

If a few questions recur, I might edit this post to include a poll!

Stimulus (paraphrased)

Pamela: physicians in training work long, up to 36 hours, shifts and that fatigue impairs their ability to make the best medical decisions during final portions of their shift.

Quincy: Thousands of physicians have gone through this regiment with records to show that the system works. So why change now?

Though I realize I need to work in the stimulus to pick my answers, as someone who has worked shifts before, I know that your relief does not generally show up generously early. So if these physicians work up to 36 hours, they are in the long haul and that fatigue can be a very real risk to decision making towards the end.

Anyways, with everything in mind above, I was left with AC B vs C.

I picked AC C because of my influence from experience...hear me out: emergency-room patients needing continuity of physician care over the critical period after admission, generally 24 hours, would seem as though at any given crucial moment, the expectation would that a physician is able to make the best medical decisions. In the event where there is not a generous overlap between turnovers from one shift to the next, that leaves patients in critical conditions reliant on potentially fatigued physicians that are towards the end of their 36 hour shift. That is why I thought, this would be enough to counter Quincy's argument. Yes, the physicians do need to better working conditions to minimize fatigue that could impair medical decisions.

Meanwhile, AC B has me understanding it as there will be more seriously ill patients during their stay at the hospital than before. I felt like I had to draw an inference on this one. While not everyone in an emergency room may not be in a life threatening state, I guess AC B paints a better picture with more people requiring more attention and the need for best medical decisions??

Please help

I do not understand the difference between AC A and C. I chose the same wrong answer the second time around a few weeks later. They both sounds so similar in their paralleling method. Why is AC A (the one about the burglars who wore size 9 shoe) right over AC C (Ultra 180 design)?

I ultimately chose A, but really struggle to eliminate B--which turned out to be correct. However, I am having trouble understanding why B is a better answer? Thanks in advance.

AC: "mistakes a condition sufficient for bringing about a result for a condition necessary for doing so".

I was confused by the wording of this choice, and was wondering if there was a simple explanation. It's flipping something N --> S , is what I am thinking.

Hello everyone!!

I am back offering LG assistance. DM if interested

My brain melted trying to understand AC A..

= (

Can someone explain why AC E is the correct answer instead of D?

In the lesson on bi-conditionals (Lesson 7 of 18 in Advanced Logic), we are told that "Alan attends the meeting only if Chris attends the meeting" is expressed as "A>C." I get that. But don't we need another expression that says in effect, "otherwise [or else], Alan does not attend"?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/advanced-bi-conditionals/

Given the rule, "If G and S are both in, then W is in," I understand the contrapositive is "If W is out, then G is out or S is out (since both G and S cannot be in). But why doesn't the contrapositive also allow for the possibility that G and S are BOTH out (as well as W being out)?

Hi,

I've been trying really hard to understand Sufficient and necessary but for some reason always get stuck with diagramming when the usual indicators are not there. Can someone explain how to figure this out or recommend any resources please?

An example of the sentence I didn't get is “demands the memorization of unfamiliar commands” in PT 26.S3.Q21

Thanks!

So I am studying the "Introduction to Logic" section. So when I'm at the exam, after I've gone through the steps to eventually know the relationship in the "sufficient condition➡️necessary condition" form, should I note this relationship with an arrow down on paper physically for further use or should I just remember it in mind?

Covered the CC fully last month & got into PTs this month; considering that my exam target is April, I've only taken exams in the 70s and 80s series. I've noticed that I tend to miss a lot of LR questions despite feeling like my fundamentals are solid post the CC. There's been good improvement in RC and LG [-4 and -5 respectively, with the potential to go -2 if I cut out the silly mistakes] since I started, but I really need help with LR questions on the newer exams which are [IMO] tougher than the ones discussed in the CC.

Is there a method to foolproof LR and RC that would be conducive to improvement?

I do really detailed Blind Review and analysis/review (after checking the answer choices) of all the LR and RC questions (including watching the majority of JY's video explanations), but when I solve a new PT I find that my score isn't increasing and that it has plateaued? So, I am not quite sure if continuing to solve new PTs and comprehensively reviewing them afterwards is sufficient, or if taking more time to re-review some of the LR questions/RC passages that I've struggled with in the past would be helpful (even if that means not being able to take as many PTs)? (I'm currently taking 1 PT/week).

Any help would be appreciated, thank you!

If aliens landed on the moon tomorrow, and we ate purple pancakes on Monday, what size shoe does your great grand uncle twice remove wear?

Note: Sorry I just had to post this because I got so frustrated with getting Necessary Assumption questions wrong.