With question 14, after I fulfill the condition of T testing G on the second day, why can't T test H on the second day as well? The rules tell us I can't have both Ts testing G (done). It doesn't say anything about a rider not testing on the 2nd day twice on different bicycles. Furthermore, what if I chose my set as "GFJH" instead of "FGHJ." Would I be violating any rule? It doesn't mention the bicycles being in order so why do I violate a rule if I decide to place T to test H on the second day. Thanks

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-64-section-2-game-3/

Could it be true that C and E are not the correct answers due to the following reasons?

.

C ) The stimulus doesn't discuss about architect in general, but specific architect (modern architect)

E ) Instead of work (object), the stimulus suggests that people (modern architect) have strong personalities that take over their work, which in turn leads to producing buildings that are not function for public use. This could mean that modern architects are impossible to simultaneously express his or her personality and be function for public use

.

.

My diagram:

Inviting + Functional --> Unobstructive (taking 2nd place to total environment)

.

Modern architects (=MA)

MA --> /Unobstructive (taking 2nd place to total environment) --> /Inviting or /Functional

MA --> Strong personalities take over work --> /Functional

.

.

.

Thank you in advance!

The vast majority of LR questions turn on your ability to see the gap between premise and conclusion. If you can understand why the premise is good or bad support for the conclusion, the question type becomes trivial and the answer choices fall into your lap. Evaluating an LR stimulus is similar to LG -- do the work up front and you will be rewarded. This post will discuss a way of thinking about arguments that may help you to better evaluate them.

The idea is pretty simple. First, identify the premise and conclusion. Then ask yourself : Just because premise... does conclusion HAVE to be true?

Example: It is a very sunny day outside. JT's ice cream shoppe will be busy.

Just because it is sunny out, does JT's ice cream HAVE to be busy?

Well probably not...

What if JT's ice cream sells god awful product?

What if JT's is in the middle of a desert and no customers are even close to it?

What if it is sooo sunny out that people are too hot to leave their homes?

This test helps to expose why the premise isn't really great support for the conclusion. This is the first step in LR success. If you can consciously figure out why an argument isn't great, you take active control of the question. This makes you less vulnerable to traps and more likely to pick the credited AC.

It sounds trivial, but LR is as simple as thinking about why premises do or do not support conclusions. The difficulty lies in slowing down, understanding what the words are really saying, and putting the gap in your own terms. Hopefully the "Just Because" framework can help make this easier!

I still haven’t quite internalized why “or” is in group 3, and don’t have a fundamental understanding on why sufficient/necessary are the way they are in group 3. Does anyone have some insight on internalization or a quick example as to why this is the case?

Of all the questions in RC, I ironically have the most difficulty with the first one - the main point/author's purpose question. I almost always can narrow the choices down to two, which are typically factually correct but focus on slightly different points of the passage. For example, in PrepTest 60, there is a passage involving Luis Valdez and the Teatro Campesino. Both C and D focus on Valdez's contributions to the Teatro, but I incorrectly chose D because I believed the information presented in the last paragraph countered a claim made in C. Despite racking my head about this question, I still cannot figure out why D was incorrect, and I certainly wouldn't have this time to devote to a main point question on the real test.

What is the best way to identify and keep track of the main point when reading a passage? I find JY's method of reflecting after every paragraph very helpful, but I find myself struggling to combine these summaries into a main point that the test writers would agree with. This especially occurs when the last paragraph introduces a new idea, or a counterexample, and I'm stuck wondering if the correct answer needs to specifically address this. How can I identify information that is given time in the passage but does not need to be included in the answer choice?

Thanks in advance!

I do not understand why 7Sage teaches "except" as a biconditional. It makes more sense to me to see it as a simple Group 3, where you just negate the sufficient. I've seen other programs teach it this way, too. I'm not trying to get into a comparison argument. I just want to know which is going to be useful to me on the LSAT. Here's an example: "I go to the store, except on Monday." It seems that the aforementioned sentence is the same as "I go to the store, unless it's Monday."

I am struggling with MSS Question types. Any tips?

Hi Guys,

I am coming back to 7Sage and law school prep after a almost 5 years away, so I am out of the practice studying as well as with the current news about the test. I apologize in advance if this topic has been discussed 8 billion times.

What is replacing the Logic games and when is this happening? Have there been any major changes to this or any other section since the ruling to take the games away permanently?

If anyone has any advice as to what I should focus on, or any areas that are not as helpful anymore, is much appreciated.

Hi!

I was watching the explanation for the in/out game referring to a group of people who can only be hired if they are interviewed for a position. In the explanation for the last question in the set, it mentions that the problem states at least 4 people are hired. However, I did not see that mentioned anywhere in the problem. Is it possible that there was an edit to the language or is there an inference that was not explained that I missed.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-23-section-1-game-2/

Hey fellow 7Sagers,

I'm having some trouble understanding this question.

Here is how I diagrammed it:

CR ----->/LW

SRO---->LW

(and then I diagrammed the last premise)

L (--S--)CR

SRO -----> /L

I hooked them up by taking the contrapositive of the first premise: SRO ------> LW -------> /CR (--S--)/L

But ultimately, I wasn't able to find the right answer. And JY says that we're supposed to disregard the last premise—Some lawyers are not cattle ranchers L(--S--)CR. How am I supposed to know that I should completely ignore this premise and why? This was the sentence that kept me from getting this question right! I need someone to clarify this concept, please!

Cheers!

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-18-section-2-question-02/

Hey. I took the July LSAT Flex, but I don't have a link available to do the writing. I have been on hold with LSAC to no avail, and I sent LSATwriting an email. Anyone else having this problem?

Thanks

Hey all,

So yeah long story short, im doing quite terrible on RC. Im averaging about -9ish, on my last PT i got -11 on RC but still finished with a 164 because i did well on the other sections. I really want to tighten my RC up to at least getting something like a -5 average, is that too much to ask for?! For those who are good at RC, or who improved quite a bit, could you offer me some advice?

Gosh, this question is crazy hard...

Can anyone explain how the author is "impugning" the motives of Roehmer in the last sentence? It really doesn't look like the author is questioning/attacking Roehmer's motives at all-- the author is just saying that Roehmer is doing it for her supporters

Thanks!

Best regards

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-84-section-3-question-22/

Hi, I did some problem sets and this was one of the questions that I got wrong: PrepTest B - Section 1 - Question 14 (regarding the artists and subsidy)

Could anyone explain to me why the answer is C?? My weakness is pseudo assumption and I've read this question multiple times, but I still don't get it haha.

Hey! I've gotten a lot out of this discussion forum, so I thought I'd do my part and help some peeps out. I made a Logic Games Log to track progress... I have been using this along with a method shared by another 7 Sage user to increase my proficiency on LG.

The Method:

*With each attempt, use this log to track your time, questions missed, and thought process.

I hope this helps!!!

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1E05DctHMKGabrygoAXcemGB8y7wBHBf_/view?usp=sharing

I feel like my accuracy is pretty good on LR, but does anyone have any advice on how to get through the section in a more timely manner? Strategies? Shortcuts?

Was curious to see what most peoples comparative passage RC strategy was. I used to read both passages and then go to the questions, but have since been trying the J.Y. method of reading the 1st passage, seeing what you can deduce in the answer, and then reading the second passage and going back to the questions. How many people do the former, and how many people do the latter (the J.Y. strategy)? I think there is a lot of value in the J.Y. strategy but also notice it usually takes more time to do so and ultimately takes away time from the other passages.

Would love to hear other peoples thoughts! Thanks in advance.

Can someone please help me diagram and understand the inferences made from these statements?

Some As are Bs.

All Cs are Ds

No Bs are Cs.

Here is what I have so far.

AsomeB—-> ~C

~D—->~C

Inference: Asome~C

Hi everyone, I tend to see a trend in my PTs that I miss most of my questions in LR between Q15 and on. I wanted to starting drilling this level of difficulty questions.

Do you guys think drilling "medium and harder" difficulty in LR would be the equivalent difficulty of questions 15 and on?

Thank you in advance (:

#help Completely Lost on this question

In JY's videos on comparative passages he usually reads passage A and then answers all of the questions for the first passage before going back to passage B and then answering the questions again. I can see the benefit of keeping the two passages separate to prevent mixing up the content, as they tend to be similar/related, but under time pressure, I tend to do worse when using this method of attack.

How do y'all take comparative passages? One at a time or all at once?

Can I infer some are -P from the statement that most people are P? I think saying most people are mortal does not mean some people are immortal, but the correct AC of this question seems to suggest the otherwise. Is this a bad LR question?

Hi can somebody help me out with this question, there is no explanation available and I don't really understand the difference between answer choices D and E. Thanks

I need a bit more explanation and practice of chaining conditional statements. Are there additional resources here or has anyone found a good resource for that? Thanks!

Did anyone else get rid of A and C and choose B because it seemed as though A and C were essentially the same answer and therefore neither one of them could have been correct?