Logic games will be the death of me. I go between -8 and -10 on every practice test, even worse on my lowest tests. Yet, even if i do the game section directly after i'm done the practice test without watching explanations or looking at the answers I can typically get them all right even under timed conditions. I have been drilling constantly and this is always the case, once I see the game I'm fine but new ones often send me for a loop. What do i do!! #Help

I consistently get 10-12 wrong on every LR section. I have tried improving for a month and it has stayed relatively the same. I'm doing the August LSAT so I don't have much time to do a full on core curriculum redo, now I'm focusing on just damage control. Any advice? Thanks!

Does anyone know if it’s true that reading comp is weighted more heavily on the LSAT flex? I’m taking the test in October and I’m not sure if it will be flex but I’m worried if it will be if reading comp is worth more. Also does anyone have any tips on how to improve in reading comp/how to stay focused?

I'm getting confused on how to write contrapositives with conditional sequencing rules on a one dimensional game board.

ex) if H before M then L before p

would the contrapositive of this be

If Not( L before P) then Not (H before M) which on a one dimensional game board would turn into

If P before L then M before H

or would it just be if the sufficient isn't satisfied the rule goes away and there is no contrapositive

Have 2 weeks until Aug. LSAT Flex. RC & LR consistently around - 4-5. LG consistently -11+. Need serious help guys. Should I be foolproofing games?

Hi,

I have trouble seeing why answer choice E here is wrong-- wouldn't the third sentence here be considered a "generalization", since a generalization is practically the same thing as a general principle, and the idea that "parallel lines often appear to converge" seems to be a general principle-- something that could be applied to multiple instances? In addition, if my aforementioned reasoning is correct, isn't this generalization being "used" to argue against people ridding themselves of tendencies by being used as context for the analogy that the stimulus brings up in the last sentence?

Any #help would be very much appreciated!

Best regards

Hey Guys! Im averaging a -6 on LR. My BR scores are close to -2or -3. What can I do to close in on this gap?

I have only taken 4 PTs so far so is this something that bridges itself as I have more tests under my belt? or do I have to implement new strategies ?

I am averaging mid 160's and targeting 170+ for the August LSAT Flex. I am mainly struggling with Reading Comprehension and finding a technique that works for me. Looking for someone to study this and develop a technique with or someone who knows what has worked for them and can help me out.

Hi everyone, thanks in advance for the advice :)

Brief background:

-Diagnostic (April) - 159; -14 LG

-PT 2 weeks ago - 163; -8 LG

-PT yesterday - 168; -8 LG

I have done the Powerscore Bibles and 7sage core curriculum and foolproofed about 80 of games PT1-35 so far. I spend 80% of my time on LG, as it is clearly my weakness. I usually miss a couple due to accuracy and then run out of time on the rest.

I'm planning to continue foolproofing 1-35 and take PTs 49-89 (every other) before the October exam. It also seems like a good idea to start taking full, timed LG sections, so I'll do that with 36-49 starting soon.

Other than continuing the foolproofing and taking LG sections, does anyone have advice on how to improve my LG score before the exam? Do I need to change my approach? I am thrilled at my improvement between the last two PTs, but I'm a little disappointed that I didn't improve in LG, since that is what I was actually studying 80% of the time; it was even as easier LG section.

Thanks to those who read this and good luck on your studies!

Hello everyone,

I am currently doing some LR problems and I've had a recurring problem. When writing out conditional statements, I am sometimes confused whether a subject is part of the conditional statement or it is a subset of another item. This is best illustrated in an example. On preptest 21, LR 2, section 3 question 22 the stim states: "Anatomical bilateral symmetry is a common trait..." When doing the problem I wrote: ABS --> C. However, in his explanation JY simply put C, rather than the conditional relationship. So how do I know when to write a conditional or when to indicate a trait/subset by itself (ABS is common = C - ABS vs ABS--->C)?

Thank you in advance for your help.

Hi 7sagers! I'm currently averaging -1~-2 in LR. Recently I've been reviewing my old PTs. I think it would be great if I have someone asking me questions so that I can review my fundamentals. And also I hope this can help someone who cannot afford a tutor. I plan to do this tutoring once or twice a week until August LSAT. Shoot me a message if you're interested! Please briefly tell me your score range in LR, your weakness, PTs you've done, your availability, how long you've studied for the test ,and whether you have finished CC or not. I live in GMT+8 (ET+12hr), but we can definitely make this work. Thanks!

I know that

A --m--> B

A --m---> C

leads to an inference of B (--s--) C

So what inference does

A ----> B

A -----> C

lead to? Does it also lead to B (--s--) C?

Hey everyone,

I started studying around 2 months ago after my first failed attempt in 2018 (diagnostic in the low 140s) and I'm currently scoring in the mid 150s (154-157) and my BR has ranged from 165-170. My accuracy is decent in LR and LG (often missing around 4-5 questions due to just lack of time)- however my performance in RC is highly responsible for my low score.

I've tried doing sections untimed to improve my comprehension (which lands me at around -4 or -5) however that takes me around 12+ minutes just to read and answer questions per passage. I've only recently joined 7Sage (previously used Manhattan prep's method for RC) and in an effort to avoid confusing myself with too many strategies I've avoided the whole memory method and low-res summaries.

Anyone know where I can go from here? Timing is a huge issue!! Looking to take the oct-nov lsat (preferably in the 162ish range) but I'm open to pushing it off until January as well.

Thanks so much in advance ☺️

h

I went from a 138 on my first LSAT the 9th percentile, to a 166 the 92nd percentile.

There is no easy path/shortcut/trick that is going to make it happen.

STUDY. PRACTICE. QUALITY.

DO NOT GIVE UP.

I'm incredibly grateful for the great resources on 7Sage and the supportive community here!

My diagnostic was 161 last July. I've been studying on the off since then while going to school. I finished all the PTs from 35 above and did most LGs from PT1-35 as well.

Good luck to everyone taking the test in the future!

I'm 3 weeks from taking the July Flex and am struggling terribly with RC. On a good day I will get a -4 and on a bad day I will get a -12. It's terrible. Does anyone have suggestions for how to best to study these next three weeks? I have gone through the 7Sage reading problems once, and was going to go through them again, but my issue is that once I hear the explanations, I remember the answers.

Hey everybody,

I'm scheduled to write the LSAT in July, and so far, prep has been okay. LR is relatively consistent, and LG has been my best section. However, like many others, I seem to fluctuate wildly in RC; in short, it is my wild card. So far, the method I use is after reading every paragraph in a passage, I write a couple of words down on a piece of paper as a "low-res" summary, and try to link all of them up after reading the entire passage. Sometimes this seems to work well, but other times (especially on dense and harder to understand passages) this strategy seems to divert my attention away from internalizing what I am reading and instead focusing on what the low res summary should be. For those that score consistently high on reading comp, do you write down the summaries or juggle it in your mind? I would really appreciate some advice on how you approach each passage, as this section is really kicking my a$$. Thank you!

Hi all!

I feel like I'm stuck in a rut with my studying. I've been FP LG which has been really helpful, but with LR I find myself scoring worse than I did when I first started studying.

What are some specific actions/ methods you used in seeing increases in LR? How did you realize what wasn't working and what did you do to get past it? How does LR studying look for you? Do you take PTs, drill, BR?

I hope to get some inspiration and guidance on how to see consistent improvements. Thanks in advance!

So, I have recently started fool proofing PTs 1-35, and it has been about 3-4 weeks now. I am definitely seeing small improvements, but for some reason I had my hopes up to finish the fool proofing process before summer ends, leaving me to start doing PT throughout the school year. Oddly enough, I've figured out that doing 4 games a day and fool proofing them all takes an insanely long amount of time. I am curious on if I didn't fool proof every single game, just the majority of them. My target score is 160 and I'm wondering if I can afford to skip some games during the fool proofing process. As of right now, I am not even close to halfway done with all of the games, and considering doing most but not all of the games in order to get into full PTs.

So along with that, I was wondering how many games a day you all recommend in order to complete fool proofing in a reasonable amount of time. I have been trying to consistently hit 4 games a day, but of course there are days where I do less. It just concerns me with taking so long, because I don't want to forget all of the information I learned in the CC on LR. Any advice is appreciated!

Hi everyone, I hope your long weekend is going as good as mine with all this studying going on (simply fantastic). -_-

Just a bit of background, I've completed the Powerscore Bibles and am now going through the 7Sage core curriculum. When going through Sufficient and Necessary conditions, I had a quick question: how would you "draw" these two sentences?

No dog is funny (https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/basic-translation-group-4-flashcards/) - Group 4

There is no reward without hard work. (https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/basic-translation-group-3-flashcards/) - Group 3

Based on the CC lesson, "No" is the identifier for the first sentence, meaning we take either of the ideas (dog or funny), negate it and make it a necessary condition.

Based on the CC lesson for the second sentence, "Without" is the identifier for the second sentence, meaning we take one of the ideas "no reward" or "hard work", negate it and make it a sufficient condition.

My question is, why is the idea in the second sentence "no reward" but the idea in the first sentence just "dog"? Why doesn't the "no" negate the dog as well, just like it negates the reward, making it "no reward"?

Sorry if I confused you guys. :( Thanks so much!

Has anyone noticed the "Some...." as a cookie-cutter trap answer choice for tougher strengthening/weakening questions?

(Disclaimer - I don't think this would work all of the time; and would actually love to look at counterexamples if anyone has any). But I think it might merit some additional attention/scrutiny if you are going to select an AC to strengthen or weaken an argument and all you have in your pocket is a some statement - kind of like going into battle with a BB Gun.

I think the reason for this is that some statements are inherently weak (or NOT powerful, in Loophole terminology). Some could be 1 out of 100 or 4 out of 2 trillion and unless the conclusion is conditional claiming that all As are Bs then its probably won't do much to claim that some As are /Bs. I could see this being particularly the case for causal arguments when there are potentially multiple and countervailing factors at play (as there almost always are).

For example, prolonged exposure to sun without sunscreen is known to cause skin cancer. If we wanted to weaken this argument for example, "some people who go to the beach everyday and never wear sunscreen will NEVER develop skin cancer". Well of course! There are always going to be a couple outliers but that doesn't wreck the fact that one thing (prolonged exposure to the sun without sunscreen) causally contributes to another thing (skin cancer).

I also think that the same reason that some statements make them incorrect (they are indefinite, vague and inherently weak) also make them appealing. After all, some could mean 99.99% but that requires the additional (and unwarranted) assumption.

Can anyone else validate this reasoning or rip it apart with an accompanying explanation? :)

This has tripped me up on one or two questions in the past because I think I'm carrying my own sense of what a generalization is. How would you say that LSAT defines this term?

If someone could help me with this question and show why every AC is wrong and why the right one is right it would be very helpful.

PT 2 S2 Question 11

"If the forest continues to disappear at its present pace, the koala will approach extinction," said the biologist.

"So all that is needed to save the koala is to stop deforestation," said the politician."

Which of the following statements is consistent with the biologist's claim but not with the politician's claim ?

A. Deforestation continues and the koala becomes extinct

B. Deforestation is stopped and the Koala goes Extinct

C. Reforestation begins and the koala survives

D. Deforestation is slowed and the Koala Survives

E. Deforestation is slowed and the koala approaches extinction