Hi,

I’m currently at -10 in LR and want to get to at least -5 before the Jan exam

to reach my goal. What would be the easiest and quickest method to do that? I have just started with reading the loophole but it seems like going over it will eat into a lot of my precious time and I don’t know if it’s worth it or if I have enough time to try new LR strategies at this point. Any tips?

My weak areas seems to be parallel flaw, method reasoning and necessary assumption questions. I think I struggle most with negation and writing out the lawgic in a timed practice test. Any suggestions about how to improve these areas would also be helpful. Thanks!! :)

I'm a bit confused about the language in the stimulus. If the college was using Hall Dining Services "until this past year," wouldn't that mean their current food vender was Hall Dining Services?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-80-section-4-question-11/

After reading the stimulus, I thought one reason why the foundation decided not to rebuild the original organ was perhaps it would cause damage to the other parts of the church. I am just very confused as to why D is incorrect; if the design of the organ had been modified several times before it was destroyed, couldn't that be a potential reason why the foundation decided not to rebuild it? because it could not match the original?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-80-section-4-question-13/

Hi all,

I need some help with this question. i watched and read the explanations, and while i now understand how to eliminate the other choices, i still don't quite get why answer C is the necessary assumption. Here's how i broke down the passage --

Context: Some nuclear reactors are in geologically quiet region, which only has minor faults and lives far away from plates.

Premise: no minor fault in this region produces earthquake more than once in any 100000 year period. That means there is at least a 100000 year waiting period between earthquakes.

Conclusion: in this region, potential nuclear sites near a fault that produced an earthquake in living memory are least likely to be struck.

So i imagine that X is a nuclear site in a quiet region near a minor fault that produced an earthquake in living memory, say 100 years. From the premise, X will not be struck by another earthquake for at least 99900 years. That's pretty unlikely. But i need to compare it to other sites, so this is where the necessary assumptions come.

C: in this region, every potential nuclear site is near 1 or more minor fault.

The negation test means there is a nuclear site Y in this region that's not near any minor fault. But the passage says nothing about the frequency of earthquakes in areas without minor faults. For instance, if Y's area has earthquakes every year, even though there are no faults, X would be less likely to be struck than Y. But that means the conclusion still holds, failing the negation test.

Am i wrongly using the negation test for this question? Hopefully someone can explain my error here. Thanks a lot.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-2-question-21/

Hello! I am taking the Jan 2021 Flex, and have been studying for awhile now. I am aiming to get into the low 170s, but consistently score within the 165-167 range. The biggest reason for this is because of my logical reasoning. I have gone through the 7sage curriculum several times, and am still having trouble on LR. I don't have an issue completing it on time, but rather identifying the right answer within two or three answers left after elimination. Does anyone have any tips on what else I can do to improve it? Thanks in advance!

I'm okay with RC, and I know that my LG will improve with practice, but I've really been struggling with improving my Logical Reasoning section.

Do any of you who have had success with that section have any advice?

As always mentioned in this discussion forum, the first 10 questions of the LR section are usually the easiest. I get to the last 5-10 and start really struggling. I am not sure if it is fatigue or difficulty of the questions. Any tips on this? I have seen that people say to follow your gut on the first 10 so you have more time with the last questions.

Competent----> have knowledge on the subject

"Only seasoned politicians are competent to judge"

Competent-----> seasoned politicians

What is the next step?

Does anyone have tips on how to tackle must be true questions when there is percentages/numbers involve because I'm having a hard time understanding why D is right

I am not understanding what answer choice D is saying. Can someone please explain it to me?

Hey all!

I got this question right almost immediately during timed, and during BR I changed it to C because I doubted myself.

I used to have a tendency to get rid of answer choices like A that use 'other' examples because I would immediately see them and think they were irrelevant. However, I am now beginning to notice myself improving at picking up on this subtle nuances in LR and just wanted to clarify if my reasons are correct for keeping it.

The reason I selected AC A is because it showed that at other companies when the cause isn't there (companies that don't offer free shipping), the effect isn't there (mail orders decreasing); therefore strengthening the causal link between these two factors which in turn strengthens our conclusion.

From a more broad perspective; I understand that everything in LR sort of depends on the situation, but generally when AC's refer to corroborating data (ie: using other - seemingly random - scenarios or situations to strengthen or weaken something) are they only relevant when they do something deliberate like that to strengthen the causal or correlative relationship? (Ie: by affirming that it's possible for something to happen because it happens somewhere else)

One last question: for AC C, I realize it is wrong because it reiterates something that we are trying to confirm. However, I was wondering if it would still be wrong even if it said something that didn't reiterate but just affirmed another correlation. (ie: 'the NUMBER of sales have increased since the policy change')

I guess what I'm asking is if an answer just affirms that another correlation happens, does this strengthen an argument (even a little?) my opinion would be know because we are trying to prove causation and what would a bunch of random correlations tell us, but please correct me if I'm wrong!

Sorry if anything was worded weirdly lol I was sort of figuring everything out in my head as I was typing.

Thanks for any help with this!

Admin Note:* https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-66-section-4-question-12/

Does anyone have any advice for getting my LG score down from a consistent -2 to -0? I have already foolproofed games from PTs 1-50 but can't seem to get perfect scores consistently. I occasionally get -0 but my most frequent and average score is -2. Is there anything I can do besides continuing to take practice tests and reviewing/redoing the games? I have been stuck in this range since September and am not sure what else I can do.

Could someone explain exactly what L is doing in response to S's argument? I thought both were interpreting access in different ways, for S it was about access to high tech care and for L it was about access to basic healthcare. I just feel that there is some sort of disjoint between the two arguments; does L even address S's argument at all?

Why is D incorrect? Can't it indicate the footprints were incomplete?

Hi All,

Has anyone recently taken PT 79? I found the RC to be incredibly difficult, I basically ran out of time on the last passage. Has anyone has a similar experience? I am normally -3/-4 on RC but this was extremely discouraging.

Why is the administrator's argument weak? Is it because she is trying to base her conclusion (pilots make mistakes in 1 in 2 million flight landings) on the flight reports and it's not as precise as actual footage of the flights? (air traffic control tapes?)

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-80-section-1-question-16/

LSAC hasn't sent out options for scheduling your time slot for Jan LSAT-flex, right? I remember the September LSAT I took, I'd received scheduling options by the 15th-- Just wanna make sure I'm not missing something.

I'm looking for advice/resources for getting to -0 in the RC Section. I'm very consistently getting -3 on RC sections and am typically missing the "curve-breaker" questions. I usually finish all the questions but don't have time to go back and review the harder questions. What's the best way to drill these harder RC questions? Do I need to just improve my speed on easier questions?

Thanks in advance for any advice!

Sorry, I don't know where to find the videos for this. Or is there a specific space on this site with videos of students completing RC passages? I'm looking for some examples of low resolution summarizing or notetaking.

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.

I am having trouble with consistency in LR sections. Some days I will take a PT and go -3 to -5 on the LR sections, and other times (like today PT 84 section 2) I will get -12... I am wondering if anyone has figured out a method that helped them do constantly well in LR.

#help

I liked B and D as answer choices. Why is D irrelevant? I've read online explanations that stated it isn't relevant whether or not the dinosaur found was related to the T-rex, but why is that? If the recently discovered dino was related to T.rex, wouldn't that weaken the connection between having T-rex features (oversized head, etc) and needing these features to accommodate their great size?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-80-section-4-question-22/

#help why is the answer A and not E?

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".