LG is by far my worst section, my biggest issue is recognizing what set up a game needs when they're a bit more complex. What do you think is the best way to practice recognizing what set up a game requires?

RC is holding my back from getting the score I want. LG is my strongest section and LR is my 2nd best. RC however-is horrible. I am almost embarrassed to say this but whatever...I can get anywhere from -8 to a whopping -13 (and it is usually the latter number)!

I have tried just about everything from low-res notes, passage structure, slowing down, reading faster, feigning interest. It is making me feel like I will never get over this hump. I usually do an RC section a day or every other day. I took a few days off from the LSAT since the Oct-Flex to freshen up but just bombed an RC section that I took.

I keep seeing people post about RC and I implement the advice others get so I am not sure how many people will be able to suggest anything new or different, but I am open to anything at this point.

The crazy thing is sometimes I will finish a section and be like okay, this is working I think I did well-only to be super disappointed when I see my wrong Qs after BR.

PLEASE HELP!

Wondering if I can get some clarification on these, or if any of the diagrams are wrong?

A requires B = A --> B

A is required for/by B = A --> B

A is necessary for B = A --> B

A necessitates B = A --> B

A needs B = A --> B

All that is required for A is B = A --> B

Also, how could one use require/necessary such that it is B --> A, with B appearing in the sentence first?

Thanks a lot!

Hi 7sagers!

Happy to announce session number 3 of these free tutoring series! We will be covering LR flaw question strategy. It will be Sunday November 1st at 7pm EST.

I have gone through the 7sage CC twice, taken over 90% of the PTs out there, and am currently scoring in the low 170s. My diagnostic was a 138. I've struggled immensely with this test, and I can show you how I overcame these obstacles.

In this session, we'll cover topics on:

-How to approach flaw questions under timed conditions

-How to actively read and engage with flaw questions

-Why anticipating what the correct answer choice could be is helpful, but why you still need to be careful when doing so.

-How you can still get these questions correct even when you don't anticipate what the flaw is.

We will be using questions from the free diagnostic LSAT test provided on the LSAC website. This session will be helpful for students that recently completed the flaw CC, or are in the PT phase of their studies and is struggling with Flaw Questions.

If this session goes well, I'd be open to hosting more free sessions! Please let me know what topics you'd like to discuss at a future session in the poll below. See you there!

A few additional things I want to mention so we can all get the most out of the session:

Please refrain from looking at the correct answer choices when we are going through problems. It is to your benefit to be unaware so you can learn!

Please make sure your microphone is on mute during the session, unless you are the person volunteering to help answer a question.

I will be asking for volunteers throughout the session. If you would like to volunteer, please type it in the chat box.

The session will last around two hours, questions unrelated to the topic at hand should be saved until the end.

If you learned something helpful, all I ask for payment is that you share the knowledge with others that could be struggling. After all, we rise by lifting others up. :smile:

Let me know if ya'll have any questions. Hope to see you there!

Chris Nguyen is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.

Topic: Free Tutoring, Flaw Questions

Time: Nov 1, 2020 06:00 PM Central Time (US and Canada)

Join Zoom Meeting

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81312736718?pwd=L3M0Zmd4NElwYkVPa2Y2bTh0VjlEUT09

Meeting ID: 813 1273 6718

Passcode: 375180

One tap mobile

+13462487799,,81312736718#,,,,,,0#,,375180# US (Houston)

+12532158782,,81312736718#,,,,,,0#,,375180# US (Tacoma)

Dial by your location

+1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)

+1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)

+1 669 900 9128 US (San Jose)

+1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)

+1 646 558 8656 US (New York)

+1 301 715 8592 US (Germantown)

Meeting ID: 813 1273 6718

Passcode: 375180

Find your local number: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/keDJlyUDws

please explainnnn

Hi Guys, I postponed my test to Jan. Would like to find some study partners to join for some LSAT LR hard questions and detailed reading for hard RC passages.

Drilled all the 1-35, just started to drill 36 above. Please let me know if your pace is similar to me.

Aim for 168 in Jan. Now is at late 155-160.

Hi! I am taking the January test and studying full-time. I live in EST time and have been studying since July and get around 165 and I am reaching for the 170. I am looking for a study buddy that is serious about studying everyday and doing PTS. Thank you :)

I struggled to get this game down and was wondering if some of you have encountered similar games in the past which might help me hone in on general skills.

how come theres no setting to make LR timing sections 35 mins?

So I just need clarification over why answer choice E is correct.

Reconcile what's happening.

Answer choice E says) Due to technological advances over the last decade, much oil previously considered unextractable is now considered extractable.

But I don't get why this is correct because it says, "amount of oil considered extractable is THE SAME as they were 10 years ago."

Please tell me what I am missing here!

Thank you!

sch.

c=.. fail to consider the human costs that consumers pay in nationalized insurance

p- high tech medicine is restricted

p2- transplants are rationed

p3- people are denied treatments they want and need

laf.

p- private insurance denies access to health care to poor people

p2- nationalized insurance have equal access for rich and poor

p3- people's right to treatment is not violated

the conclusion I infer from Dr.Laf is that obviously he's a proponent for nationalized insurance

I thought he was providing counter-example against the private insurance so I picked (C)

Maybe I don't really have a clear understanding of what counterexamples are, aren't the premises that Dr.Laf list for his case counterexamples since it counterargues that nationalized healthcare is better than private healthcare??

My suspicion of why C is wrong is that Dr.Laf didn't directly engage with Dr.Sch's premises.

In my mind, he didn't provide any example that would contradict the examples that Dr.Sch provided. (e.g. treatments are not rationed and here's a statistical data that shows that they are not rationed). Is this why they are not counterexamples?

I'm also not understanding how he's construing the word access in limited way. Is it because Dr.Sch's sees limited access in nationalized insurance but doesn't see or acknowledge the same issue in private healthcare??

#help

I interpreted "D" as saying that new fields had been found since "oil that is considered unextractable is now considered extractible." For "D" to be correct, I thought we had to make the assumption that the shift between unextractable to extractible was referencing the oil fields that have already been found. I would really appreciate some clarification on why "D" is correct. Thanks in advance!

If you've taken the sample on LawHub, how did LG go? I found games 3 and 4 were a bit difficult -- were there any splits/SBGs that I may have missed or did you just plow through using rules? Any recommendations on games similar to game 3?

Would really appreciate someone's explanation on why "C" is the incorrect answer choice

Also, if you have any tips for RRE question stems, they would be much appreciated.

Thanks in advance!

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-41-section-1-question-04/

I really struggled to correctly diagram the stimulus, specifically the second premise. The second premise tells us that "only a small portion of CA can be considered MR." I was looking at PowerScore's explanation and they diagramed this premise as:

CA -----some-----MR

When I read "small" it didn't register that it implied a "some" relationship between these two ideas. I guess I can see how "small" can imply some, since "small" can imply that at least 1% of contemporary advertisements can be considered MR. However, this was not instinctive for me. I think after going through all the CC lessons, I tend to focus on a more mechanical approach. I look for words key words like "some"/"most"/"few" to determine the presence of an existential or universal relationship.

Any tips on how to not get so stuck on mechanical approach for these types of scenarios?

Honestly, I might just be overthinking this:/

Would anyone be willing to review the May 2020 LR with me? There were a few tough questions, and I would appreciate talking with someone about them. I'd prefer to talk with someone who does well in LR.

When a passage says "usually," is this a version of "most"? For example, "John usually goes to the store." Is this essentially saying that "Most of the time, John goes to the store"? I'm confused about how one approaches this as a conditional.

Hey 7Sagers,

Here's the official October 2020 LSAT-Flex Discussion Thread.

**Please keep all discussions of the October 2020 LSAT-Flex here!**(/red)

Rules:

❌ You can't discuss specific questions. 🙅‍♂️

You CANNOT say things such as the following:

I have been reading through some of the previous posts regarding this question, and they have really helped me understand the stimulus and why it is wrong. Basically, the author gave us the following premise:

S= support new tax plan

E= chance of being elected

UE= understand economics

P1: S----> /E

P2: UE----> /S

C: E-----> UE

In order for us to get to the author's conclusion (E----- >UE) we should've had the following as our premise:

E-----> /S -----> UE

Valid Argument #3- A--> B--->C

If we had been given this premise, we would have been able to validly get to the author's conclusion.

The author's error is that he is treating UE -----> /S as if it were the same as /S ------> UE. To put it in more simple terms, the author's flaw was a mistaken reversal error (in premise two).

However, I am really confused when it comes to the answer choices. I don't see how answer choice "D" describes the error that has been identified. I have found that for the harder flaw questions, LSAT writers tend to write the answer choices in very convoluted/ abstract manner. It has really been a struggle for me to get past this. Would greatly appreciate someone's help.

Hey all - I just got my October flex score and am feeling pretty discouraged. I scored a 157 and my best PTs were in the mid-160s (scores I would be very content with). It's frustrating because after the exam I felt really confident and felt like I had a great test day and the exam was easier, but my score ended up not reflecting that. I've been studying 20-30 hours a week for 9 months and am really burnt out / tired of studying for this exam. I want to apply this cycle and feel kind of meh about going to a mid-range law school. My GPA is also just kind of alright (3.6 from Berkeley) and my soft factors are strong (Teach for America, good letters of rec, a PS I feel confident about). Does anyone have any thoughts/advice on how to navigate? I'm super satisfied going to a not-top 20 school but a little above that like a GW, Notre Dame, or Boston College, but now I feel like I don't even have much of a shot at those. Thoughts??? Thanks everyone.

If I have a statement: A ---> C

and a second statement: B ---->C

is it fair to say A + B ----> C?

Why is the strategy to write an individual rule then immediately check that against the acceptable situations. Does this have a strategic benefit to writing all the rules, then evaluating the acceptable situations. I am inclined to think the latter takes less time, but I was curious if someone has thoughts on this?

I am missing something on this game. Help please.

For drill question 12 on page 49. Wouldn't the valid conclusion be that Sophie is unlikely to be a person to know? As it is unlikely that her moon will stay in Virgo and if her moon doesn't stay in Virgo she will not have a cholesterol increase. I'm sure I am wrong but I am just not getting it.

I'm going to be taking my test in NYC at a hotel. Any fellow locals have any suggestions on hotels? I live here so I have no idea about what the best hotel is to take this test :D