For those who are supplementing their 7Sage Prep with The Loophole by Ellen Cassidy, our study group is going to be reviewing Prep Test 75 section 1 using this method. We will be sharing our translations on Tuesday 4/7 and then we are planning to going over the translations and CLIR as a group on Wednesday 5 pm Eastern time.

Here is the link to join our group:

https://groupme.com/join_group/57415632/QdTu0vK9

Both study sessions are added to the calendar and we will also be adding the Zoom link and Google drive link there as well.

Hopefully, this will be the first of multiple sessions. In addition, we have been having BR sessions weekly for various prep tests so if you are looking to improve your LR understanding or hoping to take the LSAT in the near future we would love for you to join us. All levels of prep are welcome, we also have a sub group for people still taking the CC.

can anyone help me the availability of the book "the loophole in LSAT logical reasoning" written by ELLEN Cassidy?

I stay in India, the book is unavailable on amazon, flipkart and other online websites.

I need a readable copy or atleast a PDF that can be printed.

the website of the publisher itself has not mentioned the international courier facilities for the book to reach me.

If there is anyone, with anyleads, I 'll be obliged.

thank you.

Instead of deleting submissions each time for each problem set: is there another way to re-doing them, where our new attempts are compared with our old ones?

Does anyone who has taken the Flex have a recommendation on a time slot to choose? I have been taking PT's usually around 12/1PM but not sure if its a good idea to continue doing that as I'm sure the volume will be higher during that time on test day, just trying to avoid any technical difficulties.

Any other Flex advice would be greatly appreciated!

Hey everyone, Across my studies, one thing that I have tried to do with LR is to look at arguments as repetitions of older forms of arguments. Trying to distill the argument in front of us down to something we are familiar with for me has been a real key to building my competence in LR. Competence leads to confidence, which shaves off time. Some of these forms are form that appear on nearly every exam: a sufficient/necessary confusion, the valid argument forms etc. Some are bit more rare.

My test dates are coming up (I’m scheduled to take both the July and the September exams) and I wanted to make a few posts about some specific (albeit rare) argument forms I have come across in my studies. This post will be dedicated to an argument form I have tentatively called the “tether” form. I am unaware of any other effort to specifically isolate and categorize this form or the others I have planned to post on in the coming weeks: although it is certainly possible that others closely studying the exam have indeed done so, maybe others have even named the form.

The basic analogy I want to build on here for the “tether” argument is this:

Imagine I have presented you with the following argument:

The New York Jets football team had an amazing record last year, after all, they finished with the same record as the Chicago Bears last year.

At bottom, I have tethered the claim in my conclusion to an unstated/unknown dock in the premise. A necessary assumption here would be that the Chicago Bears had an amazing record. Because the Jet and the Bears are both equal, if this assumption were not true, we would be tethering the Jets to a non-amazing record, which would defeat the argument. *_Note here to NFL fans, I am aware that in the real world this isn't exactly a necessary assumption because The Jets and Bears are in different divisions and the same record could be worth more in the AFC East etc, nice catch if you were thinking this, but: play along with the general gist of the argument for me please ;-) _

Going further: around this unstated assumption we can construct: weakening answer choices and strengthening answer choices. So in short, before we get into some examples: If I tell you that something is popular or great because it is similar to something else, I better have told you that that other things is popular or great, because by virtue of how a premise functions, I am “tethering” the subject of my conclusion to that in the premise.

Take a look at the structure of PT 56-3-10, where we have this very same outline slightly obscured by the usual LSAT tricks:

-Premise: because we have the same income from sales of t-shirts as these other series

-Conclusion: Our concert has popular appeal

With this knowledge in hand, we can see that what the argument has assumed is that the subject in which we have tethered the subject of our conclusion to in the premise, does indeed possess the property that we discussed in our conclusion.

Remember: because the Jets had the same record as the Bears, therefore the Jets had am amazing record.

We might also be asked to weaken this argument structure.

Pt 51-1-8

Here we conclude: sugar does not cause hyperactivity in population x

On the basis of: the behavior of sugar is tethered to the behavior of sugar substitutes.

Here, the credited response is simply a denial of the tethered assumption. In short: sugar is like a sugar substitute, therefore sugar does not do Y.

There is an infamous example that is slightly more complicated than the others on PT 37-1-19:

Here we have essentially “tethered” hatha yoga to traditional self help groups. And on the basis of that tethering, we conclude that hatha yoga is “powerful.”

There are other arguments that fit this form. These are just a few memorable examples.

In conclusion, my recommendation here would be to take the examples of this form of the argument and study them. Committing this form to memory takes only a few minutes of focused study and paid me dividends on PT 82, where I was able to spot a “tether” argument, answer it quickly and efficiently and move on to other questions that demanded more time from me. If you are able to do the same, please comment below with the question on PT 82 where the tether assumption is located: this is how you will know that you have successfully committed this form to memory. Carrying an understanding of a argument form forward is an important tool on the road to competence on LR.

David

Hi all! Hope you're having all having a good day.

I was wondering if you could share your tips on getting better at RC. I used to have consistent -6 and started moving downwards to -10 and now scored -14 on PT 65. I was pretty confident with reading when I started LSAT but now I am a bit short on time and really concerned about getting more than half of the questions wrong.

I do timed PT then read all the passages again during BR to come up with a better LR, HR. And clearly it seems like it's not working and I'd greatly appreciate any help. :)

Hey guys,

Hope studying is going well for everyone. I am at the stage of my LR studying where many times when I am doing a question, I find two answer choices attractive. And I am left between which one to choose. Sometimes I will get the question right and sometimes wrong. Any recommendations on how you guys approach this problem on LR questions?

Any help would be appreciated

Thanks

Hi! I don't really understand why B is wrong even after reading numerous explanations. If areas subject to more fires (which is true when the level of rainfall drops below normal for an extended period of time like in a drought) tend to be less densely populated than areas where there are few such fires (where there is normal rainfall), doesn't this explain why there is less damage in areas during long periods of drought? There is less population or structural damage by the fires if there aren't a lot to begin with as opposed to ONE fire in a densely populated area would be disastrous even if there is normal rainfall.

The structure of the stimulus in both of these argument part questions seem very similar and the argument part identified in question stem seems similar as well.

Why is it that the last sentence in 8 "our sun has an unusually high abundance of these heavier elements for its age" is not an intermediate conclusion but that the last sentence in 20 "the heavy industrial activity of coal mining would force most of them to close" is an intermediate conclusion?

#help

Admin Note: PT87.S3.Q8: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-87-section-3-question-08/

PT87.S3.Q20: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-87-section-3-question-20/

I need help with trying to answer the questions that ask something along the lines of "Which of following could substitute the condition (insert rule here)"? I don't know how to approach these at all.

Example: PT M20.S2.Q11

anything would help. i really sturggle on these

Could someone explain this question to me please?

Lol at this discussion thread title, but I truly think my test anxiety will be the death of my score.

I am blind reviewing in LR between -3 and -5, took PT 83 S1 couldn't even finish the section and scored -11 (left 5 questions blank).

I could feel that I was really anxious because I knew I was being timed and I wasn't able to understand the stimuli/think as logically as I do when there is no pressure. I need to close my gap and kick this test anxiety before January! I really feel that it hinders my ability to think properly. :(

If anyone has been in my position or has any tips, I would greatly appreciate it.

I do like to take positives away from each test and all the strengthen, weaken, NA, MSS/MBT questions I answered were correct. Ironically I got the SA/justify/RRE questions wrong which are usually pretty straightforward for me. My Bernese Mountain dog was barking during my test so I'm hoping it was just a once off lol.

Does anyone happen to have a list of LR questions that include conditional logic flaw in the stimulus? I'm trying to get better with recognizing when the main flaw has to do with conditional logic. I ran into question 18 from section 3 of PT 31, and the stimulus includes conditional logic. I was able to make a conditional logic chain and I was forcing myself to look for a flaw in the conditional logic. It turned out that the flaw had nothing to do with conditional logic. Instead the flaw in the stimulus dealt with a part to whole error. This isn't the first time that I try to force the conditional logic flaw, so I'm planning on drilling this weakness. However, I would greatly appreciate having a list of questions with conditional flaw. Thanks in advance!

A little while ago I was on here and people were talking about "nicole.hopkins" webinar on her reading comprehension strategy. Does anybody have the link to that or know where I can find it? Thanks everyone!

Not sure how the answer is E. I located the conclusion in the middle not as the first sentence.

Can someone please explain to me why B is right?

I have no idea why the answer must include "some" instead of "many". Am I going crazy?

Okay I'm pretty pissed because I'm pretty sure I got this question wrong for a stupid reason.

AC A says: _Admin Note: I deleted the text as it is against our Forum Rules to post the answer choice text verbatim.

Everything sounded good except for 'in no way implicates the defendant' - is this answer choice basically saying the argument overlooks that a witness may think a defendant is guilty even though their testimony might not match that?

IE: in no way implicates/involves the defendant? As in, maybe they called her in to testify and asked her what she ate for breakfast?

I picked AC B for some reason, I knew the others were wrong which I'm glad about because apparently AC E was a debate for many.

If anyone has tips on matching flawed reasoning when your prephrase is correct (mine matched up perfectly!) but you have trouble navigating abstract terms, that would be helpful!

Thanks!

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-48-section-4-question-13/

Hi,

I've been studying for the past 10 months and have made tremendous improvement in my LSAT from a 146--->159. Unfortunately, I believe I have hit a plateau in Logic Games and require a tutor in order to improve any further. I have followed the fool-proofing strategy as outlined by JY very closely and it has helped me master logic games (consistently -0 LR in BR) but I really struggle with performing under timed conditions (-7/-8 timed). Please comment below or DM if you know a tutor/are a tutor!

Does anyone have experience with taking FLEX in a hotel or other area for reasons that their place is not quiet enough to take FLEX? (hotels, etc.)

Hello everyone! I was curious if anyone has any thoughts/tips on what I'm experiencing: I did CC for LG using the fool proof method and got to where I was doing the games either on or under the recommended time. Hadn't touched LG the past 1-2 months to focus on RC (plus work got busy). I started doing the CC games again just to test myself (no time restrictions but still timing myself to get an idea of my comfort level) and it's taking almost double the amount of time for each game. Any tips/is this normal due to my hiatus in LG or should I spend more time fool proofing before starting to do PTs? Thank you!

Does anyone know the length of the break between the 3 sessions on the Nov Flex test? Does the next session start automatically or is the break 30 seconds or a minute? Thanks!

Hi!!

Is there an 'easy' way to find the hardest (5-star difficulty) LR sections or to see the difficulty of the LR sections in each of the PTs??

I can see this info for the tests in my analytics (for the sections that I've completed, since I started taking as Flex recently), and so far, I've only encountered 4-stars as the max difficulty - I don't even know if any 5-star ones exist (but, I have to imagine if they do for RC and LG that they do for LR). And, since I started taking PTs as 'flex,' I can't see the rating on the LR sections I haven't done.

I'd love to do a super-hard LR section as a timed practice (or to have a list of many to do) and short of looking into every PT, I don't know how to best find this info. :) Thanks for any help, if you know a shortcut (or know of sections!!).

I kind-of want to compile the data into a spreadsheet - I think it would be helpful. I'd like to also practice some 5-star difficult RC sections also ... but those are easy to find in the problem sets compared to the LR sections as a 'set.' Especially as my analytics grow and I end up working them in the process of doing PTs!! I'm concerned that I'm leaving some difficult LR sections behind by running my PTs as Flex.

• I already have a list (spreadsheet) of the LG difficulties that has been very helpful as I work through the PTs (and/or to know which specific PT LG sections I MUST do as a full set to simulate a super-difficult set experience (27, 34, 88).

The stimulus tells us that property rights are super important to the city council. Then we are told that for that particular city, there are restrictions that prevent property owner from doing anything to their property (other than cutting their grass and getting rid of weeds).

I am not well-versed on how zoning laws work, so I wasn't sure who holds the power over enacting zoning laws. I got the feeling that it was the city council members, but I wasn't sure if we were allowed to make that assumption.

Going back to the paradox, I anticipated that a possible resolution was that there were other people in local government who had a say on whether or not to pass these zoning laws.

When I got to the answer choices:

A- "sometimes allowed exemptions" this further shows that the city council is restrictive. Just because they make at least one exception, doesn't erase the fact that they're almost always restricting the property owners' rights

B- I chose this answer choice. My reasoning was that property owners actually wanted things to be this way, despite the council members cries that the zoning laws were too restrictive to meet the needs of property owners. If that's what the people want, then is there really an issue? As I'm writing this out, I'm wondering if that's where I went wrong. Equating issue with paradox? The contradiction could still exist even if the people being affected by it don't see it as an issue, right? Ugh...I feel like I'm overthinking this:/

C- I saw this as a contradiction to our premise that says that, "property rights is of the utmost importance to city council"

D- I felt that this answer wanted us to assume that every time your neighbor does something to their property, it affects your own property. Which i don't think is a fair assumption. What if someone is adding an extra room to their home, which is located on three acres of land and the nearest neighbor is miles away? I could see how putting up a fence could have a direct impact on your next-door neighbor, but the fact that it's not something that happens every single time that you do something other than cut your grass or get rid of your weeds, really confuses me.

I felt that without the assumption that I pointed out, this answer wasn't strong enough to resolve the paradox.

E- I thought this further emphasized that property rights were being restricted, and thus deepened the mystery behind the contradiction

I would greatly appreciate clarification on why D is correct and why B is incorrect. Thanks in advance!

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-22-section-4-question-17/