Does anyone know what the difference is between SeqOne games in LG and SeqPure games in LG? They seem to be more or less the same lol.

Hi,

I think this question is infamously hard... can anyone explain why the answer is D and not C? Both C and D looked incredibly attractive :(

P.S. I have read a lot of explanations for this question, and the top 2 I have seen (but don't feel fully address why D is right and C is wrong) are:

explanation #1-- D is the only correctly qualified answer choice: D is the only one that talks about "viewers" and all the other answer choices talk about other groups of people that may not include the surveyed viewers.

My problem with explanation #1: D talks about "viewers surveyed immediately prior to the debate", while the stimulus talks about "viewers surveyed immediately after the debate". These 2 groups may or may not intersect. In addition C talks people who people who watched the televised debate, which also may or may not intersect with the "viewers surveyed immediately after the debate" described in the stimulus. Thus, both C and D may or may not qualified correctly.

explanation #2-- it is totally possible for us to take the information in C and not weaken the stimulus at all. After all, let's say that the people who watched the debate were 5% more likely to vote for Tanner than those who did not watch. It is still possible for the viewers surveyed among the people who watched the debate to be biased for Lopez.

My problem with explanation #2: a flaw also exist with D-- that the viewers surveyed immediately prior to the debate are not the same people surveyed after the debate. This could mean that D could be true without weakening the argument too. In this respect, I feel like it is still quite difficult to balance between the 2 answer choices when both seem flawed, and it is hard to tell which one is less flawed.

Thanks!

Best regards

Hi everyone! I hope you all are killing the study grind! Anyways, I was wondering if anyone had some tips on Reading Comp? I understand what JY is doing, but I am not seeing much improvement in my score. I understand there might not be a lot of strategy to Reading Comp, but I didn't know if any of you might be doing something that works for you?

Thanks again!

Hi everyone,

I'm a bit confused about the answer choice D. #help

Premise 1: Each of the EMP winners from the past 25 years covered by Acme retirement plan

Intermediate Conclusion/Premise 2: the Acme Plan offers the winners a financially secure future

Conclusion:It is probably a good plan for anyone with similar retirement needs.

Stem: most vulnerable to criticism

Correct Answer(D): It takes for granted that some winners of the Economic Merit Prize have deliberately selected the Acme retirement plan, rather than having had it chosen for them by their employers.

I think the Intermediate Conclusion does not really follow the Premise 1. But If we should accept all the premises, then we probably need to accept the Intermediate Conclusion. After accepting it, even if these winners have not actively chosen the plan, anyone with similar needs may still be financially benefitted. How does D points out the vulnerability?

Or, maybe we do not need to accept the Intermediate Conclusion, though it's also a premise?

Having taken about a dozen PTs so far, I've noticed that I seem to be shifting from a general range of -1 to -3 on RCs to -3 to -7s. I'm currently on the Logic Games section of the curriculum and have noticed significant improvement on LRs and on the LG game types that I've gone through in the curriculum so far. True, I have yet to start the RC sections, but I am surprised because I think I should have built some RC skills since a lot of the argument breakdown/general logic lessons I've done are applicable to RC.

It could be that I am just hitting harder RC sections(the blackmail passage on PT65 was dreadful, answers right or wrong based on the tiniest of qualifications/inferences) but I think something is off about my approach-I've noticed that I feel much more constrained by time than I was before in RC, thinking 'how the hell am I supposed to read all this AND answer all these questions in 35 minutes?'. One factor I think is that I feel it is harder to 'get the right answer and move on, check later' with RC because there is less conditional logic, and finding one answer that seems right does not preclude another answer that is 'more right', unlike a lot of LR questions where there is by the rules of logic there is one clear answer'. There's more of a need with difficult RC questions to 'weigh' the appropriateness of two close answers.

I'm taking the July Flex test, and I'm aware that RC will be weighed more than usual, and I'm not jazzed about my initial greatest strength slowly becoming my Achilles' heel Since all the PTs I take are 59+, I'm wondering if I should concentrate on finishing the curriculum which is no sure thing even with full time studying, or doing more RC problem sets by themselves, even before I get to RC in the curriculum.

I'm a slow reader by nature, and years of school have pretty much taught me to skim everything I read for the main points to combat that. But studying for the LSAT, and especially LR, I've learned it's so important to read every single word to get the full meaning. When I have all the time in the world and when paragraphs aren't that complex it's usually not a problem.

The problem comes under timed pressure. I usually end up panicking and skimming to get main ideas. I end up missing questions that I easily could have gotten without that pressure.

While reviewing, I often find words I missed like "some" "many" "significantly" or "likely" that were the key to getting the question right. In Blind Review I really only miss 1-4 in LR and timed I miss more like 6 -10. The disparity is even greater in RC where I usually end up guessing on an entire passage for lack of time.

Did anyone else have similar struggles while learning to read for the LSAT? Are there any types of drills that helped? Or is it more of a long-term mindset change? Or any advice to overcome the mental aspect of the LSAT and avoid panicking would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you guys!!

I am wondering if I should take the LSAT again... I have studied for about a year now. My average score has been 154, but the week before the test I scored a 161. I was very excited and positive that I would do decent on the LSAT-Flex.. but I ended up with a 151.

On the day of the test, my test was delayed 30 minutes and I had to sit there and wait in silence until I was matched with someone who could conduct the test with my accommodation. It really messed with my nerves the first section, but I used all the skills I could to calm down.

I was really hoping to only sit for this one time. I feel pretty burnt out, but I was shooting for some schools around T-14 to T-30 schools and only one T-2 reach school... Is there any advice that people have? Is it worth putting in more time to try again? I've heard mixed things about people's score not changing much. At this point I just want to start working on my other application needs...

Hey anyone down to go through this game. According to the information out there it’s seen as one of the most challenging grouping games. I completed the game untimed and only missed 2; so when I went back to the video explanation on the site, JY set the game up different from mine. I used RSTY for my slots and GPLH for my moving variables. I got question 9 wrong because I flat out could not figure out what it was asking me:( and I got 11 wrong - now for this question I did huddle my variables and realized G was the most restricted, however I didn’t understand why answer B was correct over C :( ... can someone please provide a video and/or feedback for this game.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-28-section-2-game-2/

Starting to foolproof logic games, and I'm wondering what other people's personal practices are for the process (i.e. how many games do you do per day, do you wait until you've mastered a game before you start a new one, or do you rotate between a few while mastering them, etc.) I can't help but feel like I'm neglecting other sections of the test by devoting so much time to only LG, so I'm also wondering if y'all do different section types during a study day. Any details you can provide or tips about the process would be super helpful!

I have a quick question on the application of the "or" rule in the Games. For an example, lets say that in a 8 slash sequencing line, if a rule states that L comes right before S or R comes right before H go together, this is an inclusive or right. If L comes right before S, it is still possible that R also can come right before H right?

Hi, everyone! I wonder if y'all could give me some advice on how to improve my speed while also maintaining accuracy?

For the past few months, I have been practicing untimed PT sections (1-35) because I wanted to focus on improving my accuracy first. I started with a 144 for an untimed PT, and I have recently achieved at my 170 (but still untimed). Now I think I should focus on improving my speed, because under timed condition, I cannot finish all my LR questions. Usually there would be 4 or 5 left and I don't have extra time to check those questions that I am not pretty sure. I know that if I cannot increase my speed, then my actual score would be much lower. Therefore, I was wondering if y'all could give me some advice? I would really appreciate your help and kindness! Thank you!!

I am working on making an interactive flow chart, but I thought I would share what I have typed up so far. Please feel free to correct/add on, or give any suggestions on memorizing other than flashcards. I have a pretty ambitious idea for a flowchart/app, but it's hard to work on that and also study for LSAT so probably won't happen anytime soon.

**Weaken**

weaken

most vulnerable to the conclusion

most vulnerable

counts as evidence against

calls into question

**Strengthen**

strengthen

most helps to justify

Support

**Sufficient Assumption**

true if assumed

enable conclusion to be properly drawn

justify the conclusion

the conclusion follows logically if (This is also a keyword for MBT so watch out)

**Debate**

counter

in response to

**Paradox/Conflict**

most helps to explain

resolve

explain

account for

discrepancy

surprising result

**Conclusion**

main point

main conclusion

**Must Be True**

must be true

follows logically (also a keyword for SA so watch out)

inference

properly inferred

properly concluded

properly drawn

**MSS**

most strongly supported

most strongly suggests

**NA**

necessary

depends

required

relies

assume/assumption

the conclusion does not follow unless

the argument assumes which one

**Method **

argument proceeds by

describes

argumentative technique

method of reasoning

strategy of argumentation

**AP**

role in argument

function in argument

argument part

the reference to

the statement that

**Flaw**

flaw

most vulnerable to criticism

questionable technique employed

So I am just now starting logic games and I am somewhat confused on when I should be doing the full proof method. Is that something that should wait until I start to PT, or should I full proof the problem sets from the CC as well? I am completely new to the games, and as expected I struggled on the first sequencing games. I am still having some trouble understanding if I need to go back and do the game over again or not like the full proof method says to do. If so, am I supposed to full proof every single problem set game that I struggle with initially?

If a sentence gives an explanation, does this mean the sentence offers support? I've run into this issue twice on argument part questions. 70.1.17 was one, the other was on another test.

As an example I've made a simple argument:

Conclusion: Global warming is real.

Premise 1: Global temperatures are rising.

Explanation of premise1: Global temperatures rising means that a global phenomenon, like global warming, must be occurring.

I've tried to make an argument where you have a clear conclusion, a supporting premise, then a sentence that gives more information on the premise. Does that explaining sentence give support to anything? Is an explanation the same as support?

On BR, I always get SA and NA right because I can take the time to diagram them correctly and really think about it. But when I'm timed there's just no way I can coherently figure out the diagram in enough time that I should. Anyone else having this problem and have any tips?

Thanks!

I'm having difficulty understanding why the correct answer choice for this problem is A. I'm struggling to derive from the stimulus that the government should continue trying to determine acceptable toxin levels. Any help would be appricated!

Hello,

For a while, I have been practicing Logical Reasoning and I cannot seem to cancel out irrelevant answers immediately. I seem to get bogged down by them especially for strengthen, weaken,and sometimes necessary assumptions, and RRE. I have to really think hard about the 4 answer choices before choosing the right one. However, even then, I can still get them wrong. I understand that you cannot get every question right. But I would appreciate you guys for a general principle to eliminating irrelevant answers quickly so that at least I can boil down to 2 answers?

Your help will be much appreciated. Thank you.

Is doing the bundle 1-35 still a good idea in order to master games? Because people are saying now the games are different from the older games. Once I finish the CC on games how should I full proof? Should I do 1-35? Or for example 15-49?

na

Can anybody help me with this question, because it is driving me crazy.

Why is B wrong? The stimulus clearly states "anygiven individual molecule of substance can activate..." how is this statement not supporting B?

And how can C be right? how can we be sure that no sweeter substance will be found? What about half a molecule for instance?Are we supposed to assume that it is impossible to activate a receptor with less than a whole molecule?

This question is truly infuriating, any help would be greatly appreaciated!

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-21-section-3-question-16/

Hi 7Sage!

I was wondering if any of you blind review logic games? Fool proofing has dramatically helped my understanding and my competence on logic games and I am continuing to do the fool-proofing method. But I don't know if blind reviewing my logic games after I first take a game is really necessary.. it seems that logic games is just fundamentally different in regards to study strategy than blind reviewing logical reasoning and reading comp. Blind review for both of LR and RC have helped a lot of course.

Just thought I would ask for some opinions.

Thanks!

Hi all! I'm wondering whether we can enlarge our screen, as shown in this video ( ), while doing FLEX? I prefer to read with "only passage" function without turning pages, so I need to make the words small. This strains my eyes. So I am wondering whether we are allowed to enlarge the screen like that. In the video I use Macbook pro, and I enlarge the screen with two fingers. If this is allowed, I would highly recommend this approach to those who are taking FLEX. It allows you to read without scrolling or turning pages, and it is very fast and convenient! Thanks!

How does everyone approach the comparative passage in reading comprehension?

I've seen a couple of posts that advocate for reading passage A, going through the questions then reading passage B and again going through the questions (https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/1234 https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/8533). The presumptive benefit is not falling into probably what is the most common trap answer choice - a detail that is discussed in one passage but not the other.

Admittedly I have not tried this approach (and I do plan on experimenting later with this) but for point-at-issue questions in LR, I have never liked the approach of reading one response, eliminating answer choices and then reading the second response before hopefully honing in on the correct answer. For whatever reason, I just find it too mechanical and feel that I am better able to get a sense of the tension in the two statements by reading them concurrently instead of 'jumping around' the screen from stimulus to ACs, to a different part of the stimulus back to the ACs again. Perhaps somewhat related is that I find that doing the acceptable situation question in LG as I read the rules to be somewhat discombobulating and that it disrupts the natural rhythm of figuring out how the rules interact with one another (I'd happily trade away the additional 10 seconds in efficiency for a stronger comprehension of the game board).

Additionally, I think the digital format compounds the amount of needlessly bouncing around in the comparative passage in terms of having to click through each question.

My current approach is to read Passage A in totality, then creating a low resolution summary for the structure of this passage. Afterwards, I go onto Passage B, again reading the passage in its entirety and before building out another quick low resolution summary for this second passage and finally I quickly consider how the two passages are related.

Previously, I read Passage A (creating a low res summary for each paragraph as I went) and would immediately proceed to Passage B (also creating a low res summary for each paragraph as I went) and felt that this handicapped me in getting a sense of how the two passages as a whole related to each other. Also, I think going right from one to the other further confused me to what details were included in each passage.

Does anyone else do something similar? I know that RC tends to be the most divergent in terms of strategy but just curious as to what others are doing here.

Hi everyone! As I'm now transitioning to digital LSAT, I found that highlighting is difficult and inefficient to do on the screen. Maybe that's because I'm not used to it yet. I used to put some symbols beside the texts that I think is important. But I can't do it now. I think I really need to cut down a significant amount of highlighting in RC. Which is painful since I'm so used to drawing anything I want on the paper. Can anyone share what you usually highlight in RC? Is not highlighting anything a better strategy? Thanks!

Can we all agree that question number 7 of LSAT 21 Section 3 has got to be the most ridiculous quesiton of all time. So just because John's face was reflected in a mirror, his friends did not recognize him? lolwut