I dunt know wjy C

Disclaimer: I'm not claiming to be an RC expert, but I've seen huge improvement in a short time period (roughly two months) and would like to share how.

Starting out I was abysmal at RC and things stayed that way as I was told RC is the "least improvable" area. Fast forward and this is my most improved section. So what changed?

I started doing additional reading pretty well every evening for about an hour. I've been reading some dense literature, Dostoevsky's Demons in particular. I atrribute an increased facility in reading passages to this additional reading practice.

I read the LSAT Trainer's tips for RC. The main points can summarized as follows: routinely ask yourself why the author is writing what they are, what the purpose of each pargraph you read is in relation to the passage as a whole, and what the main point of the passage is.

Using J.Y's "active reading" technique. After each paragraph I read I force myself to jot down a summary/main idea of it. Knowing I have to write something down while reading has indeed helped me read with more purpose, and force me to better understand paragraphs before moving on.

Reading a new RC passage or two every single day and doing a thorough BR. I'll often sit and analyse every single question and make sure I'm confident of my choice before I move on. My BRs typically last 30 minutes to an hour.

Reading articles on Sciencenews.org. The broader your knowledge base, the better equiped you are for whatever a passage throws at you. Moreover, these passages ressemble actual RC passages and I've even been able to implement similar techniques while reading them (ie: asking what the purpose of a paragraph is and how it relates to the main point of the article).

I've starting listening to "A Skeptic's Guide to the Universe" podcast. As a foreign languages major my science knowledge is weak, and I think it's possible that listening to discussion of science topics by experts has helped me improve in this regard. Plus it's just genuinely interesting material and once again adds to your knowledge base!

I've seen lots of RC struggles posts on here lately so I felt this write up would be timely. Let me know what you think!

Hi,

Can anyone explain why B is right here?

It seems, when watching JY's explanation, that the reason why B is right is because it provides an explanation for the phenomena-- perhaps the other dinosaur was a baby, and that is why it has T-rex features but small size. However, when I tried to flesh this explanation out, it just didn't seem to work:

if the dinosaur is really old, it strengthens the argument by giving an example of a dinosaur that has T-rex features but is small

if the dinosaur is a baby, it still seems to strengthen the argument by giving an example of a dinosaur that has T-rex features but is small

Thus, even though it does provide an explanation for the phenomena seen in the argument, I don't see how the dinosaur being a baby would provide an alternative explanation that could weaken the stimulus' argument when the argument never gave an explanation for the phenomena in the first place.

Hope that makes sense to people reading this

Any #help would be appreciated!

Thanks!

Hey guys, I just wanted some advice on how to go about closing the gap before the NOV LSAT comes through.

So I recently did a section and actually incorporated BR (I know it's praised here, I usually just file the section / PT as done and review questions I got wrong not BR format but by watching videos on them).

Anyways outside of this section (and PT 62 LR in general, wow it was tough) I would usually get -10/-9. I am very confident I understand the material well but timing is tough, and under timed conditions I think I might over stress myself / choose convenient answers just to beat the time.

Any advice on how to continue from here? I'm really trying to push for a 164+!

I think ad-hominem is often colloquially defined as a direct character attack: Jim says the earth is flat but Jim is an idiot therefore Jim must be incorrect. This is probably the most common iteration of ad-hominem.

But contrary to popular notions of an ad-hominem, LSAC defines ad-hominem as anything that distracts from the argument at hand and redirects the aim toward the maker of the argument. To this end, I've also seen ad-hominem take the form of:

Attacking the interest/motivations of the argument maker: Jim says the earth is flat but Jim runs a flat-earth film festival every year so Jim has an interest in getting more flat-earthers to show up to his event. Therefore, Jim must be incorrect.

Attacking the past actions of the argument maker: Jim says smoking is harmful for your health but Jim smokes 2 packs of cigarettes per day therefore there is reason to question Jim's beliefs.

Hypocrisy: Jim believes that reality is only an illusion yet Jim has worked strenuous a 9-5 job for 30 years to provide for his family. Clearly Jim's beliefs to not match his actions therefore those beliefs are questionable.

Apologies if this is pedantic but almost got a question wrong because of this and I thought I'd flush this out on a post.

Are there any other types of ad-hominem that you are aware of? Trying to make a list.

I have been grinding out Logic Games, both timed and untimed, and I've made little to no progress in terms of my ability to make proper inferences. Even with less pressure in an untimed setting. Has anybody else run into this issue? I have made substantial improvements in both LR and RC, but this section is my absolute worst by far. I am a shoe in for a -12/-13 on my timed PTs and it is honestly pretty discouraging, especially since I have seen that this should be the "easiest" section to improve in. Does anybody have some good suggestions for someone who is struggling mightily with games? I would really appreciate any advice at this point. This is literally a make or break section for me in terms of me getting at or above my desired score. Thanks so much guys.

please go over PT1 S3 Q12

Struggled with this one. Can someone process this with me? Thanks

Does anyone have any advice on how to get through LG more quickly? I have additional 50% time accommodations on the LSAT so that's what I practice with and I still feel rushed and can't always finish. What takes me the most time is problems where it seems like I have to test out every answer choice. On PT 68 I got -11 and -1 BR on the LG section so I know I can do the games it's just timing

Hi, everyone. I am currently reading a textbook of Australian Torts Law, and the following sentences really confused me.

"However, there are four exceptions to the requirement of actual or constructive possession. The common feature of each of the exceptions is a notional possession by the person out of actual possession, through either possession through another in respect of whom there is an association, or where a gap in possessory title to sue might occur." Would anyone explain the words in bold to me please? What does it mean by "through either possession through another"???

Thank you!!!

I noticed that for this question we are being presented with a principle in the stimulus. The principle used conditional logic:

Intended General Audience ------> book has to discuss aesthetics and utility

In order for the conclusion to be true, the principle has to then be "activated." In order for that to happen you must either 1. satisfy the sufficient or 2. negate the necessary. The answer choice ended up satisfying this sufficient.

This isn't the first NA question that I have seen structured this way. I am not sure if this is an observation worth noting for future NA questions. I have only done a handful of NA questions so far, so I would definitely appreciate some insight.

Also, if there is a flaw in my reasoning I would really appreciate the feedback:)

Thanks in advance!

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-21-section-3-question-06/

I'm currently working on drilling NA and have gone back to re-do the CC lessons on negation. I have slowly started to find success in applying Ellen Cassidy's strategy of finding the loophole in the argument. For this stimulus, my loophole was: What if psychotherapy helps treat the chemical imbalance? Just because you don't know about the imbalance doesn't mean that there isn't a possibility that the current treatment would help address it. After reading answer choice A, I immediately circled it. However, I decided to read through all the other answer choices. I was able to easily eliminate B and C. B addressees a comparative issue that was not directly addressed in the stimulus. Meanwhile, C simply did nothing for the argument. I was left with A, D, and E. A fit my loophole nicely, but D seemed so tempting. I ended up negating the answers, but it seems like I negated them incorrectly. Would appreciate it if someone could check my negations:

For A, I negated it to:

Treatment by psychotherapy can produce some effective reduction in or correction of chemical imbalances ......

For D, I negated it to:

Either psychotherapy is more effective or there is a tie between the effectiveness of medication and psychotherapy, in regards to trying patients with mental disorders.

How would you negate answer choice "E"

Also, why are D and E worth eliminating?

Thanks in advance!

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-4-question-08/

How did you rule out Answer Choice "C"? Some folks mentioned, the AC gives only "what's valued" and that doesn't constitute a resolution. What if, people got better at being ambidextrous as they grew older and that's why the % of LH Population drops as you grow older?

I have been struggling with two different types of RC questions recently, InfAp and RecMP. Does anyone have any tips to help out with those specifically or RC in general? Thanks!

In the PT I am taking there is a flex option that removes a LR section. Is it random/have any significance?

AGGGGHHHH.

I started out with RC being my best section, and since I've improved so heavily on LG and LR, RC is now my worst section. Welp. Currently, I'm averaging -3 for LG, and -3 for LR. But -7 for RC!!!!!!! WHYYYY

I'm taking the November test, and really need to drill RC HARD before then. In total, I've probably studied for the LSAT for close to 6-8 months now (spread out at different times) and I feel like I've made the LEAST effort for RC because it doesn't really excite me lol and I guess I was discouraged when people said you can make the least improvement for RC.

ALL AND ANY TIPS WELCOME for: RC drills, RC improvement, etc.

Hey y'all, I am struggling on Logic reasoning. I have taken the lsat august for the second time and I am scared it's not the score I want. In order to prevent taking it again on October and not getting the score back, I am planning on taking it in November. Any advice on how to improve LR in the next 2 months? PLEASSSSEEEE HELPPPP.

any structure schedule I should be following? I'm honestly drained. I keep getting 10-14 wrong on LR Sections.

Hi everyone.

I just did PT 2 game 4 and got crushed by the amount of inferences that were needed in order to figure out the game. Does anyone have some games similar to this in mind? I think this is where my focus should go.

Thanks!

On some of these exercises, on these I’m improving to 4/5, on the previous set however, SA, it’s a total loss. I’m wondering just how much of the LSAT is going to be comprised of SA. I have literally spent two maybe three weeks trying to understand this, going back and listening and re-listening to JY and it is not taking, so I’m beginning to feel that I’m spending WAY too much time on this vs other huge problem areas like logic games. Suggestions from those who have taken the LSAT? Taking in January.

Has there ever been a weakening or strengthening correct answer choice which uses the word some or many? If so which pt section and question?

I just got finished with 81.3.16 about financial incentives to conserve energy. The trap AC would have been perfect if we changed "some" to most or all, and I know this happens frequently. I was a bit shocked at the correct AC, however, and am now curious enough to see if some/many are essentially instant disqualifiers.

Hi all the purpose of this post is twofold: to teach everything I know about phenomenon hypothesis (PH) and correlation causation (CC) argument types, as well as to be a knowledge check where other people can correct me and make sure my understanding is solid. I'll start with PH, then go through CC, and then I'll show how both argument types are very similar.

In PH arguments, we have something that happens in the real world, then we offer an explanation of why that thing is the way it is. For instance, I see a bunch of seals barking. Then I see fishermen riding their boats in the harbor. I say, "It must be that seals bark whenever they see fishermen." My phenomenon is "seals bark" and my hypothesis is "they bark when they see fishermen." In lawgic, the SC would be "See fishermen" -> and the NC would be "Bark."

There are a lot of ways to strengthen PH and CC arguments and I'll explain them here: 1. A->B, 2. block B->A, 3. block C->A&B, 4. block "no relation," 5. block bad chronology, and 6. show "good consequences." 7. No cause no effect

A->B really just means "If see fishermen -> bark." This works with PH and CC arguments. How can I show that seals really do bark when they see fishermen? Show more data. a trend of more data. I don't want to see 1 more case of seals barking when they see fishermen, I want to see a lengthy trend of seals barking many times over a long period of time. I have seen at least 2-3 times where the LSAC will use a trap answer where the "strengthening" answer choice just throws in 1 more example of the hypothesis working. "You say seals bark when they see fishermen, well Joe saw a seal barking when fishermen were present." I want to see "over the last 5 years, there's an 85% chance that seals will bark whenever they see fishermen." I don't want a single corroborating example (although this does strengthen the hypothesis very, very, very slightly), I want to see a trend.

Block B->A. Let's say my argument is "When the sun shines, then my trees grow." To show that B actually causes A is a little weird in this case, but it would go like this: "My trees growing actually cause the sun to shine." If the latter case were true, then my argument that "sun shine -> trees grow" would be ruined! The causality would be flipped the other way around. The B->A style works really well for CC arguments where I'm trying to show that A is causing B; to show B->A, or block B->A can weaken / strengthen the argument.

For example - "When the sun shines, -> trees grow." To strengthen this argument I can block B->A. "It's also not the case that trees growing causes the sun to shine." I'm eliminating the possibility that my causality isn't flipped. To go back to seals, I would block the case that barking (NC) actually is the explanation for the seals to somehow be seeing fishermen (SC). "It's not the case that barking allows the seals to see fishermen."

Block C->A&B = block an alternate explanation.

What if it's the case that shrimp actually cause the seals to bark and the fishermen to appear? In that case my phenomenon hypothesis argument would be ruined. It's not the case that seeing fishermen causes seals to bark. It's something else.

I want to block this alternate explanation: "It's not the case that shrimp cause fishermen to appear and that shrimp cause seals to bark."

In a correlation causation argument, let's say "hearing about earthquakes in the news causes people to dream about earthquakes." But what if everyone was watching a movie about earthquakes, and this movie caused the dreams? We would want to strengthen our argument by blocking an answer choice that says "A recently released movie about earthquakes is known to cause people to dream about earthquakes." We can eliminate the possibility of an alternate explanation, and this strengthens our argument that actually hearing about earthquakes in the news caused dreams.

No relation / 5. bad chronology

Bad chronology goes hand in hand with "No relation" so I'll group them here. "If I study -> get 180." What if I see an independent study that says "studying has been shown to have no effect on your test results."? That would show "no relation."

Likewise, what if I said "Bob studied then he got a 180. Therefore, studying gives you a 180." Then I say "Bob started studying AFTER he got a 180." This shows bad chronology - the effect actually occurred before the alleged cause! Block this to strengthen.

Good consequences

If the phenomenon hypothesis argument is true, I want to show good consequences. If my hypothesis is true, what would happen? Let's say my hypothesis is "If seals see fishermen -> then they bark." Good consequences AC would say "Fishermen have increased in the bay 500% in the last month. Since then, sales of earplugs have increased 1000%." Fishermen are in the bay a lot more, which means seals are barking, and people don't want to listen to that so they buy earplugs.

Another example is "The city is increasing the speed limit by 30mph. Therefore there will be more car wrecks." A good consequences answer choice would say "There have been more speeding tickets since the speed limit increased."

If we take our hypothesis to be true, then make a reasonable assumption of what could happen if the hypothesis were true, we get a "good consequences" answer choice that strengthens the argument.

No cause no effect

Let's take the argument "It's sunny. Therefore my ice cream will melt." If S -> M.

If I show that there's no sun, and indeed my ice cream is not melting, this is good! I strengthen my argument.

However, if I show "Cause with no effect," or "Effect with no cause," these WEAKEN the argument. It's sunny, but my ice cream isn't melting. Or "my ice cream is melting, but it's not sunny!" These weaken.

Hi,

I have trouble understanding answer choice B. What is it like to be ambiguous in an LR stimulus? When I was doing this question under timed, I thought ambiguous notion of knowledge was the author does not state whether her example of some Greek philosophers' opinion is right or wrong. So I chose B. Even after watching the explanation video, I still have trouble understanding why B is wrong and what would a stimulus be like if the correct answer choice were B. Any #help would be appreciated!

Link to the question: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-c2-section-3-question-18/

I have studied LSAT for a while, but I have a timing issue. I recently completed PT 64 and made -12 but -1 in the blind review. Getting -1 in the blind review gives me some confidence that I'm smart enough to get good score on the test, but as long as I cannot complete it within the time limit, there is no way I can get 165+ on LSAT. I think my reading speed is slow and is not very accurate in reading comprehension under the time constraint. Thus, I want to ask anyone how to improve a speed issue and accuracy. Any help will be a great benefit to me!!!

Hey fellow 7Sagers,

I have two quick questions for y'all!

I'm having troubles understanding why JY translates answer answer choice A—that ends up being the right answer—like this:

MPH ----> LS

moreLS = moreH

When answer choice A states "Most people need the love and support of others; without it, they become depressed and unhappy"

I translated it like this "/Love&support --m---> depressed&unhappy," using "without" group 3 translation negate + sufficient. Also, why not inserting most into the arrow?

Cheers,

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/experimental-psychology-pf-question/?ss_completed_lesson=1142

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-32-section-4-question-21/

I don't understand how B is correct. It states that "a piece of narrow floorboard was NOT SIGNIFICANTLY LESS EXPENSIVE than a piece of wide floorboard'." However, how does that translate to narrow boards being more expensive--which I believe would make narrow boards a status symbol. Going by the phrasing- they could be only a little less expensive, or simply the same price. Please help and earn my eternal lsat blessings :)

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-24-section-3-question-23/