I read recently that RC has gotten more difficult over the years. What are your thoughts? For those of you who have completed both old (PT 20-40) and new (PT 80+) RC sections, do you see a noticeable difference in RC passage/question difficulty? Are your old scores consistent with your new scores, or do you see a dip as they get more recent?

I get worried when people say I shouldn't use old tests as a gauge for how I'd do on new tests, but I'm not yet ready to burn through recent resources to find out myself, haha! (Also, if someone already asked this I would love to know where to find the thread!!)

My diagnostic was below a140, my RC was a nightmare but I did it. And you can do it. Don’t give up. Take a failure as an opportunity to get better and stronger.

Bye,7sage community.

Stimulus

I fell into a trap and selected 'D' as my answer choice. After reviewing the question again, I realized that I made an assumption when choosing 'D' as the answer choice.

A) "Businesses generally greatly underestimate the risk of future accidents". This was easy for me to glance over because I was looking for a STRONG weakener. However, the correct answer choice doesn't have to be super strong to work. This answer choice works because it demonstrates the "it will probably won't happen to us" mentality. These business may meet the sufficient condition of "values their profits" but there may be an alternative reason or an explanation for their lack of environmental safeguards. If this is true, the conclusion doesn't follow. Therefore, A is the correct answer choice.

B ) We don't know if preventing accidents are long-term or short-term, so what?

C) Business sense is NOT equal to profit. NEXT.

D) This is tricky. "Businesses treat fines that are levied against them as an ordinary business expense". If you're like me, you made an assumption if you selected this answer choice. You probably assumed that businesses wouldn't install safeguards because the cost of the fines are worked into the budget. However, this answer choice could actually strengthen the argument. If businesses meet the sufficient condition of "Values their profits", avoiding accidents could improve their bottom line. Then there's a reason to install safeguards.

E) What does this have to do with their profits???

Thanks for coming to my TED talk. Please critique or provide your reasoning.

What are your guys thoughts on prep-tests do you think its more worthwhile to do the whole prep-test or to do the Flex? And on a different note could you burn yourself out by doing too many tests in a short period of time? Would love to hear some others thoughts. Thanks in advance!

Hi everyone,

I am planning on taking the LSAT Flex in a few weeks, and I find that I struggle with In/Out Advanced games. Does anyone have any tips for how to best approach these and for how to be completely accurate? Thanks.

I originally chose 'D' as my answer choice but after reviewing it, I can see where I went wrong. The stimulus describes a theory that had been rejected due to lack of proof/reasoning for the occurrence of the event. The stimulus goes on to say that the theory is now accepted despite not having reasoning/proof. But we accept this theory because we can see the event through observation( because of our technological advances).

A) This answer choice mentions the "aim of science". We are not concerned with the "aim of science".

B ) This answer choice mentions a "mathematical description". The stimulus only says "force". We can't assume that "force" and "mathematical description" are related. Or even technology. If we accept that "science has become far more accurate at identifying underlying forces", our stimulus wouldn't make much sense. It could be weaken because they didn't accept Wegner's theory on the basis of force.

C) Eliminated. Technology and measuring instruments are not the same. Even if it were, the theory isn't harder to work out. The author never mentions this phenomenon.

D) "Employing statistics and the laws of probability". No.

E) "When the event a theory postulates are detected" or when we can observe an event..."the theory is accepted without even an explanation" Yes. It is the correct answer and it matches the example in the stimulus.

Please critique or reply with your line of reasoning.

Hello I have a limited time constraint in trying to take the April Flex so with this I have 2 questions.

I have school, and LSAT studying to balance out. I also cant just do Foolproofing LG drills for the rest of the 2 months and ignore other sections as well as PTs. In the course syllabus am I correct to assume that each problem set is harder the higher you go? So if time is of the essence should I just do the middle and last problem sets of each type of LG in the course Syllabus (Sequencing, sequencing with a twist In/out, Grouping, Grouping/Sequencing etc., For example problem sets 2 and 4 out of a possible 4 problem sets or 3 and 5 out of a possible 5 problem sets? I dont think I have the time to get the full experience of LG training such as watching every video and foolproofing every game for every problem set. I have 2 months and 3 sections to study for as well as sub categories of problems to study for in each section and that is not counting doing and reviewing PTs. Sorry if my post seems out of the blue and a blob of text to decipher but I need advice from you experts on here.

Also how do you recommend diagramming really fast with master and copy gameboards dotted down within the first question. Cause as one can see if one has the gameboards with all the inferences jotted down then the games are a piece of cake. Yet when I realize how much time is ticking making the inferences and making the boards- I start to blank out and mess up quite bad. Its the darn diagramming, once that is taken care of in full- the games are easy to solve (so far in my experience at least). If I try to rush and solve the questions with a poor diagram and do a lot of calculations in my head- things start to get bad to say the least........

Sincerely,

Midas79AU

I know for most logic games we should chain conditionals, but JY did not chain conditionals together on the CD game. Does this mean that there are times when we should not chain conditionals? Thanks.

In March of 2019 I took the test after 2ish months of studying and received a 161. I wasn't ready. I picked up studying again in June of 2020. I had to cancel my November Flex because of technical issues. I just got my January FLEX back and it was a 166. I'm honestly dead inside -- my last 5 PTs averaged a 173 and my overall average is a 169.

I genuinely don't know what to do at this point. I'm considering walking away because:

(1) my transcript would now read 161, CANCEL, 166. I'm worried about how taking the test 4 times would be viewed.

(2) I'm working full-time now and this test is mentally exhausting.

(3) I don't know how I could prepare differently -- I felt ready for January.

On the other hand, I don't want to sell myself short. I have PTs left and I'm not planning to apply for at least 2 more cycles.

I'm targeting T20 schools. Should I retake? Let it be? Wait to see if the 5 section test comes back? Lmk your thoughts.

Hello,

I've been studying JY's method of "knock-out" answers v.s "sneak-in" wrong answer choices.

And I'm wondering if it's possible for an answer choice to be BOTH a knock-out AND sneak-in wrong answer choice.

For instance, in PT 66, S3, G2, Question 11

Answer choice (E) seems to knock out a situation that was possible in the old world (e.g. PVROSTR) but also sneak in a situation that was not possible in the old world (e.g. RVRSTOP).

What does this mean?

Thanks!

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-66-section-3-game-2/

#help

I've had a long battle with this test and thought it might be over after January 2021.

I began with a low diagnostic of a 142 in November 2019, I cancelled my January 2020 score, scored a 151 in February 2020. I joined 7Sage during that month and spent the summer really studying and practicing well. I had scored my first 160 the weekend before Jan 2021 and just received a 150 back.

I'm absolutely devastated and confused on how I could score 10 points lower after months of practice. I have no idea where to go from here?

I've done this question a couple different times, and each time I get wrecked.

Stimulus

To have the most successful economy you need to train as many people to:

Japan seems to be thriving in regards to the standards set above.

Europe, on the other hand, is in a weaker position :

There aren't enough scientists to research and develop tech. It also lacks labor to use the tech.

Then we are told that Japan has a shortage of "technically qualified" people. They have a lot of people qualified to complete menial tasks.

A couple of things that I was still confused about:

Answer choices:

A. "worldwide shortage" - in the stimulus we are only told about what's going on in Japan and Europe so we can't make any inferences about what's going on worldwide

B. I went with this answer choice, because of the sentence that said that Japan didn't have "technically qualified" people. I did question whether or not you needed to have qualified people in order to meet the criteria that was outlined in the first sentence, but it seemed like a better answer choice than the others

C. "highly skilled labor" - all we know about Japan's labor is that it's based on people who aren't "technically qualified"

D. I confidently eliminated this because the stimulus said that Europe had a shortage of scientists who could research and develop new tech. I thought this implied that there was a shortage of new tech. If there's a shortage of new tech, why would you need more people to apply new tech? If you hired a ton of new people there wouldn't be any tech for them to work with, right?

E. "other countries" again, we don't know about other countries. The stimulus only tells us about what's happening with Japan and European countries.

Would greatly appreciate an explanation on why D is correct and C is not.

Thanks in advance!

I'm about to cancel my Jan LSAT-Flex score.

if I cancel my LSAT - Flex score, law schools can find out that I cancelled my score?

Hello

I'm searching for a tutor as soon as possible to prepare for the April 2021 LSAT Flex. Please reach out to me at : zorazambezi@gmail.com with your rates and availability.

Best,

Zora

Since questions that require making inferences about some/most statements vary across type, I was wondering if anyone had a list or even a question they might recommend as a good test of your ability to chain/negate/make inferences with some/most statements. Any tips, resources, or where to look would be appreciated!

I'm about to cancel my JAn LSAT-Flex score.

if I cancel my LSAT - Flex score, law schools can find out that I cancelled my score?

What would you say it means that I consistently miss more AFTER doing blind review than in my initial run of a problem set? Is it just a matter of second guessing myself too much or is it a bigger fundamental issue? If it's just a matter of second guessing, any advice on how to combat it? Thanks fellow LSAT warriors!

I just took the lsat writing section and I forgot to show both sides of my scratch paper when I started scanning my room. Has anyone experienced the same thing? Will I have to retake the test??

LSAT-Flex Feb registering on Proctor, is it started for anyone?

Hi! I am using the LSAT trainer and studying for between 15 and 20 hours a week while working full time. I am shooting for the April test and trying to improve my score from a 155 to breaking 170. Does anyone have any advice on supplementing The Trainer? I'm doing a lot of practice actual exams (62-81). Considering using the 7Sage monthly subscription for the last few months of test prep to help with reviewing. Anyone do the same thing? I am about 6 weeks into studying. When do most folks see improvement in their scores?

Has anyone had stop clock breaks? Is there a limit?

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/

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

"Hello!

Could you please offer some advice as to how I can best utilize 7sages premium Curriculum to get better at games? Because I think there is a study plan available within the account to aid me in getting better at my accuracy, comprehension, and consequently my timing in games. I’m doing fine in reading comprehension and logic reasoning, but for some reason I’m not doing good enough in games yet. So I need to somehow customize and tailor my learning in a way where I can learn games thoroughly. I can do ordering games fine and the type with the conditional chains but sometimes grouping and hybrids take a while for me to understand. I need something I can follow along with and track my progress for LG. So far I can do almost two games in the 35 minutes. I thought about starting with the first prep test and working my way up on games throughout all the sections and then hopefully by like the 60s, I would be good enough to start timing myself but someone told me that was not the best way to proceed because games from the earlier prep tests are not a reliable indicator of how games are today. So if that’s not the appropriate way to learn and drill games, then do you have any suggestions for me? Do you have any advice for me please?

Thank you"

[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

Hey everyone,

My LSAT analytics are showing me that my Parallel Flaw and Parallel Reasoning questions are of the highest priority. I've made some strong improvements in these two question types, but want to continue getting better at them. I'm hoping someone could shed some light on their approach to these questions. I will lay down my basic approach to them, and perhaps someone could tell me whether my approach needs work.

Parallel Flaw

For these question types I want to find the AC with the most similar flaw. Argument structure is not SO much as important (but still a consideration) as the flaw itself. So first, I check to see if I can diagram the argument in pure Lawgic. If I can do that and find a similar glaring flaw in the AC - BOOM - done. If the question doesn't translate well into logic, I try to use 'pseudo-logic' diagramming - much like the questions you encounter in PF section of the CC. If that doesn't work, I then try to to just understand and vocalize the flaw as a whole. Is the argument moving from relative evidence to absolute, is it confusing sufficient with necessary, etc etc?

These 3 approaches is essentially how I attack PF questions. What I find is however, that I'm usually unable to diagram the questions in pure Lawgic, so I either 'psuedo-diagram' or I try to vocalize the flaw. Is this a good tactic?

Parallel Reasoning

For these question types we want to find the AC with the same reasoning structure! First I try to see if the stimulus lends itself neatly into Lawgic. If that doesn't work, I attempt to use 'pseudo-logic' terms to better understand the parts of the argument and how they relate (structure). Finally, if that doesn't work, I try to vocalize the way in which the argument moves from premises to conclusion and find a similar conclusion. I find this question type easier because I can turn to the conclusion and eliminate answer choices which do not have similar conclusions.

SO, do you think my approach is good? Can I make improvements? If so, how?

Thanks, and good luck!