I need some help with this question. I got the right answer but in Blind Review I changed the answer to a wrong choice. The right answer is D. I understand why that is right. The problem I have is trying to determine why A is wrong. Is it just that A doesn't pertain to the argument? I believe the premise to be "It is unrealistic to expect [upgraded training programs with increased classroom hours] to compensate for the pilots' lack of actual flying time". The conclusion is "Therefore, the airlines should rethink their training approach to reducing commercial crashes." The gap would be the relationship from "lack of actual flying time" to "commercial crashes". That gap is filled by D with C being a tempting but incorrect answer choice. I just can't elucidate why A is wrong except that it doesn't address the relationship. I guess what I am trying to say is, it seems to me that answer choice A is an assumption that the stimulus makes. I guess I am assuming when it refers to "Training programs" that could include a training program that increases the pilots actual flying time. In any case, your input would be appreciated.

Admin edit: Please review the forum rules:

https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/15/forum-rules

#3: Do not post LSAT questions, any copyrighted content, or links to content that infringe on copyright. Not a good way to take the first few steps down a long road that is your legal career.

Does anyone have any good examples of LR questions (from PTs 1-35 / 36-46 / 72-82...lol) which deploy some complex causation logic and or use some implicit assumption that is a central part of the argument.

An example of the latter type of question would be a question I recently did (can't remember the PT) where scientists claimed that, "If there was extraterrestrial life 50 million lightyears away then they would be able to contact us. Ergo, there is not extraterrestrial life 50 million lightyears away" [The implicit assumption being that we have not been contacted by extraterrestrials (lol)].

Another example is Disease X causes increased levels of serotonin. Serotonin is correlated with high-blood pressure. Therefore taking a bill which reduces serotonin levels might be able to reduce high-blood pressure [The implicit assumption being that serotonin actually CAUSES high blood pressure].

Questions can be any "type" (flaw/strengthen/weaken/etc.) really would just love to see more of these.

Thanks!

Hey all,

So I was wondering what you guys felt about drilling older RC passages? (PT's 1-40)?

What are some of the biggest differences you feel in those older RC passages and newer ones?

Also, do you feel that older RC passages are less "tight?" I know JY says that some older LR questions are less "tight," meaning that some correct answer choices aren't as "air tight"/vigorous in that they require some small assumptions (whereas newer LR questions are more vigorous and dont make those small assumptions.) Do you feel that the same is true for older RC questions?

Thanks.

Lately I’ve been trying to predict the rough scope/main idea of each paragraph and I’ve been having a super hard time. I know that it’s because I haven’t done it enough, and that only practice and time can bridge the gap. That being said, I was wondering how many of you actually predict the main idea/scope of each paragraph (besides the intro of course). And if some of you don’t do it, have you had much success without it?

Hi all - I'd really appreciate your help on understanding the argument in this question.

I get the gap in this question is that just because first doctrine states that "all historical events must be explained in economic factors" doesn't mean that historical events are explained only in economic factors.. that's why A is the correct answer for this question.

However, explanations in other forums state that second doctrine is rightly mistaken because it's apparently stating that all historical events are explained by psychological factors and psychological factors only. But I don't really understand how this is inferred from the statement in the stim - "The second doctrine attempts to account psychologically for all historical events." Does "attempts to account psychologically for all historical events" infer that historical events are accounted only through psychologically?

I am currently going through the LG bundle and I have a difficult time solving In/Out games with subcategory under time pressure. During BR I noticed in several of these games when one of the subcategories (let's call it category X ) get fulled only by putting one item in, there is reoccurring inference. The inference is, any two item from any categories that have different items of category X as their necessary condition are in a either/or relationship.

This is probably obvious to you but could you please correct me if I am wrong? Do you think having such rules might help on the actual test?

Does anybody know why AC C is incorrect?

On my last four pt’s I have gotten -7 wrong on each one. In between each pt I foolproof all games from that specific test and continue to go through tests from 1-35 and the pts I completed recently. I have already foolproofed 1-35 as well. On each test I miss the substitution question, one or two total in the first three games, and then I get killled on the fourth game usually missing three or four. I’m hoping someone could give me some guidance on how to get my misses down on that last game. If I could do that I think I’d be in decent shape. On BR I am able to figure the games out and go -0 to -1, so I think I may just not be picking up on the inferences quick enough. Thanks in advance for any advice or tips you have!

Hi everyone. I know this is quite a basic question but its somewhat essential for me. I have been seeing improvement everywhere except LG. I am constantly getting 10 plus wrong mostly because of timing and accuracy issues. How do I improve? I know I need drill and fool proof but I am not really seeing massive improvements with such methods and I can really only get through 1-2 sections a day with these methods. What specifically do I drill and how do I effectively drill? If I master this section I will see great improvement but can't manage to substantially increase. Thanks!

Hello! I started my RC section at a -4 on my diagnostic, and I've found that after studying the section, my score has gotten worse- going to a -7 or -8. Does anyone have any advice? Has this happened to anyone before? I wonder if I'm just overthinking the answers.

Hi,

Can anyone explain why the answer here is A and not E?

I have major trouble understanding why A is right when it doesn't seem to explain why the 52% of people who like the candidate continue to like the candidate-- it only talks about the people who don't like the candidate.

Likewise, E at least seems like it could apply to both groups of people since the people who liked the candidate believed the candidate's excuse while the people who didn't like the candidate may not listen to his excuse.

Any #help would be appreciated!

Thanks!

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-63-section-3-question-26/

Any suggestions?

7/8 LR mistakes on my last PT were overconfidence errors (didn't flag the question and answered in less than 1 minute). Caught all but 4/7 of these relatively quickly on BR. Any tips on how to overcome this. I don't think it was my nerves on this exam (though that has been a factor in the past).

I typically make 1-2 overconfidence errors per PT but this PT 82 was particularly brutal, I guess.

Trying to figure out a timing strategy without a lot of luck...

Does anyone have suggestions for how to foolproof LG and stay organized without printing the games out? How do you keep track of which ones you've done/need to go back and re do? How do you take new games while also redoing old ones?

Has anyone tried LSAT Wizard's logic game methods? and how do you feel about incorporating that with JY's method? I recently watched LSAT Wizard's videos and I feel like it is quiet helpful but also feel like I'm even more confused on how to learn LG

Can I think of NA questions as must be true/mss?

I have gone through the course and watched all the LG videos and done most of the problem sets but I'm still unclear on a few things. I know this stuff is basic but I am really not smart.

So say there is a rule in a sequencing game if x is 3rd then y is 5th. Does that mean is y is 5th, then x has to be 3rd? I keep thinking the answer is no. Or if it is an in and out game. If X is in, then Y is in. I know the contrapositive is if X is out, y is out but what about if I only know y is in. Does that mean x has to be in as well or can y be in by itself.

I really don't get lawgic and can't follow when JY starts writing formulas. I'm sure his explanations are great, my brain just cannot process them. It doesn't work right. I've got extra time accommodations for the actual test but I still don't come close to finishing LG.

I've recently been working on Parallel Flaw questions and have realized that I am struggling with linking up conditional statements. When I am given a statement such as:

All dogs are happy. If you are happy, you will live a good life.

The presence of conditional indicators allows me to recognize that the statement above uses conditional logic. Beyond that, there is also a "link word" that allows for me to chain these two statements together. The "link word" is "happy."

However, I have started to come across stimuli that use conditional logic, but do not have an outright pronounced "link word." An example of this is PT32-Section4-Q21. The stimulus provides us with the following:

Premise 1:

Experimental psychology requires application of statistics

experimental psychology -----> application of statistics

Premise 2:

You can't understand such application without training

understand application -----> training

In the video explanation JY seemingly seamlessly uses logic to link together the two premises.

I am struggling to see how these two premies can be linked up. I thought application of statistics and understanding of statistics were two distinct ideas.

There have been a couple other questions where I have run into a similar issue. I think that for me there is a disconnect between the context of the sentence and the conditionality. I would really appreciate some insight regarding this particular question, and just a general idea of what I can do to get better with this gap in my understanding of conditionality.

Thanks in advance!

I created a few Logical Reasoning practice sets for myself in Problem Sets but am finding that Reading Comp questions are mixed in....? Why are there questions that involve long articles and ask for the main purpose? I have never come across RC in my logical reasoning drills. The questions ask about the author and the passage and are not classified logical reasoning questions. #help

RC is by far my worst section-- and the most inconsistent which worries me. I can go from -3 to -8 between preptests.

I find that on preptests I get a lot of inference questions wrong. I'm usually able to eliminate the obvious wrong AC fairly quickly BUT I ALWAYS select the trap AC.

I was wondering how other people tackle these problems and if anyone else has similar problems with inference questions!

Hey guys,

I'd love to get some thoughts on different ways to go about practicing RC. I feel like I'm not getting tons of progress from just practicing over and over. Do you have any advice to offer me in regards to practicing for this section of the test? Timed vs. Untimed. Reading other things. Breaking things down. IDK, just trynna keep things fun and fresh!

#help

Thanks

I ended up going with answer choice C and quickly skimmed through D and E.

I am having a hard time understanding why E is a better answer choice than C.

Thanks in advance!

Hey there! If you're from Ontario and want to BR LR Sections from PT's 59+ comment below. I'm planning on drilling 2 sections each on Saturday and Sunday from this pool throughout August in preparation for the October LSAT, and would love to have a few study partners.

Update: Hi all, I unfortunately will not be able to meet for this group anymore, but feel free to contact any of those who commented and arrange meetings.

Title.

Any suggestion is appreciated!

I am scoring about 4/5 points lower then goal score, but on those PT I am getting -5/-6 LG . This is my best section and I am usually lower then that but lately have been higher and not sure why. I know I can go -0 or MAX -2, but not doing it recently. When I BR I just shake my head because I fix the couple little mistakes so quick and wonder how I even ended up at that AC timed. I have full proofing all LG from 1-35 now so maybe it's because I have been doing too many games ?? not really sure and looking for advise to tweak up LG before test. Thank you!

Hi everyone,

Here is a question, about weakening a claim, from my error journal:

Claim: Organic factors contribute to mental illness.

(A) the claim fails to consider that mental illnesses are only manifestations of organic factors.

(B) the claim fails to consider that any change in organic factors manifests itself as a change in mental condition.

Would you mind sharing your analysis of whether each of the choices is correct or not?

My specific issues:

Thank you very much for your time!