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.

I dunt know wjy C

please go over PT1 S3 Q12

I struggled with learning the 21 common flaws when I first started studying them, it wasn't enough to just drill them and memorize. The flaws were more fun to learn when I matched the logical fallacies and found examples; so I did my best to create a table with just that. I'm no expert so if any of the logical fallacies don't match please let me know so I can edit! Hope this makes drilling the flaws easier :)

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZLYOD9ej4Rm96yiUiV1p61TONQr0sS7WFv-CyWtJ070/edit?usp=sharing

Some more resources on logical fallacies;

https://www.logicalfallacies.org/

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/

Does anyone have any tips for attacking rule substitution questions on logic games without fully sketching out the implications of each new rule? That method works, but I simply don't have the time for it so I usually end up skipping those questions. It seems to me like there might be some sort of structure/trick to it (i.e. in a sequencing game, these types of substitutions are most common etc.), but I haven't been able to wrap my head around it.

What's worked for you? What hasn't worked for you?

Thanks!

Hi all! I'm looking for some advice on how to close the gap between BR and timed logic games scores before the October test. Under timed PT conditions, I might miss up to 4 or 5 questions while I'm able to go -0 redoing games untimed during BR.

Does anyone have advice on how to close this gap, or more specifically how to improve time management on logic games? I've been drilling games regularly and feel pretty confident but for some reason this section sends me into panic mode on practice tests (and the real deal) and my ability to quickly make inferences/set things up properly from the get-go suffers.

Thank you!

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+!

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

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.

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!

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.

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

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/

To those who score well in RC:

What does timing look like for you in a section? Not in terms of breakdown per passage, but how much time you have left over and how many questions you left yourself go back to?

My BR for RC is consistently -1 or -0, but under timed conditions it ranges (from -2 to -8). I'm trying to close this gap, since I think my BR indicates that it's a timing issue and not an understanding issue?

Thank you :)

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.

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

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!

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,

Like many others, I was stuck between A and C here. However, while I do understand JY's explanation that a "claim" does not need support while an "argument" does, I thought A was correct here because the second sentence of the stimulus (the sentence that gives an example of how evolution would optimize survival for moose) does seem to serve as "support" for the idea that "evolution does not always optimize survival of an organism", thus making the evolution thing an argument rather than a claim. Can anyone explain why C is right and not A?

Any #help would be appreciated!

Admin Note:. https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-81-section-3-question-21/

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,

So while I did understand why the wrong answer choices were wrong here, I had trouble understanding why E was right. Can anyone explain their reasoning here?

The reason I had trouble understanding why E was right was because I didn't really know what was the difference between "subjective association" and "possession of concept". I thought that a "subjective association" had to be an association that people made based on their "subjective" (aka personal) opinion, but I didn't see any personal opinion in passage A-- I saw people basing their opinion from the connotations in the languages themselves, not from their unique thoughts/experiences.

In addition, "whereas" in answer choice E indicates contrast between "subjective association" and "possession of concept" yet, from my perspective, it seems like people holding a masculine view of a violin and people holding a rough view of numerical values both seem like "possessions of concepts"-- they are both opinions that people hold.

So how is E right?

Any #help would be appreciated!

Thanks!

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-89-section-3-passage-4-questions/

Okay so I understand the question just confused because two answers seem right to me! Maybe this will help someone with practices well?

Zeno's unfunished Furniture sells exactly four types of Furniture - Footstools, hutches, sideboards,tables,and vanities. Irene buys just four items, each of a different type, and each made of entirely of one kind of wood. Maple, Oak, Pine, or Rosewood. The following conditions govern Irene's Purchase.

'

4.if Irene buys a footstoll, she also buys a table made of the same wood.

5.Irene does not buy an oak tree

6.Exactly two of the items sge buys are made of the same kind of wood.

If Irene does not buy an intem made of maple, then each of the following must be true EXCEPT

A. Irene buys a footstool

B. Irene buys a pine hutch

C. Irene buys a rosewood sideboard

D.Irene buys exactly one item made of oak

E. Irene buys exactly two items made of pine.

I thought the answer was D not B because if she doesnt buy an item that is made of maple then she cant but a vanity which means she buys a footstool and if she buys a footsool then she buys a table made of the same wood..right? so that means if she buys one that is one type of wood then the other needs to be made of the same type of wood and the table cant be oak so that means she can't buy the footstool and table becaue its the same wood so wouldnt that make D false? Since they have to be the same?