Hi everyone, at what point to you map things out? I have gone through a good chunk of the CC (now at more MBT questions) and I answer every question in my head using intuition, not mapping them out, and get most correct. I'm afraid if I map them out using lawgic that this will take me too much time. If I am getting most questions right, should I stick with my intuition or start mapping them out? I have reviewed logic a few times, but it just isn't clicking.

Hey guys, I had a difficult time eliminating answer choice C on this one. I do understand why A is correct but I can't 100% eliminate C. Explanations I've come across indicate that C just restates what was already stated in the premises, but I still see some slight gaps that C would seem to fill in, so I'm going to take a stab at what I think is going on here, and was hoping I could get some feedback as to whether there's more to add to my explanation or to confirm that it is sufficient. So here it is:

Basically, this is a sufficient/psuedo sufficient assumption question.

The argument is as follows:

Conclusion:

4) What is relevant is not symbolism (not S) but what it directly presents (DP). (R--->not S and DP)

Analysis:

So I see that symbolism is a new term in the conclusion, and I would like to get from R-->not S). I know from "2)" that R-->not E, so I see that adding in not E-->not S would allow the portion of the conclusion, R--->not S to follow via R-->not E-->not S. So that makes sense for A being correct.

However, when I ready the conclusion: "What is really aesthetically relevant, therefore, is not what a painting symbolizes, but what it directly presents to experience," I ignored what was in between the commas and was looking to justify the conclusion, "What is really aesthetically relevant, therefore, is what it directly presents to experience." So I focused on that.

Looking back at the premises, I saw from "1)" that paying attention necessitates intrinsic properties and from "3)" that paying attention also necessitates looking at what is directly presented. But the premises never explicitly connected intrinsic properties to that which is directly presented; it was simply implied.

So going back to the conclusion -- which I qualified thinking that the middle (not S) was extraneous -- I thought that in order to conclude, "What is relevant is what is directly presented (R-->DP), I figured why not make the intrinsic/directly presented connection explicit? So I plugged answer choice C) Relevant-->Intrinsic, leading to (R-->Intrinsic)--->DP.

Where I think I might have gone wrong:

Plugging in Relevant-->Intrinsic still leaves the the original gap between Intrinsic and Directly Presented open. Also, Was answer C already stated in Premise 2) as E-->not R, as the contrapositive of R-->Intrinsic?

The way I was supposed to have thought about it?:

Paying attention leads to looking at only intrinsic properties and paying attention involves only looking at what is directly presented, so there's no leap in concluding that intrinsic properties involve what is directly presented. So it adds nothing to the part of the conclusion that what is Relevant are only instrinsic properties.

However, connecting Relevant to whatever is not symbolic is an open gap that never connected Extrinsic properties to being symbolic and hence answer choice A) making this explicit completely (or almost entirely in the case of this being psuedo-sufficient) bridges the gap.

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-28-section-1-question-24/

Has anyone gotten their results yet?

When it comes to necessary/sufficient assumption questions, I used to intuitively get to the right answer. As I am now forcing myself to apply consistent process, I am a bit confused as to how the rules apply. I understand that as a rule of thumb, question stems that feature 'depend on' require necessary assumptions, and those featuring 'properly drawn' require sufficient assumptions. I just wonder where do sufficient-and-necessary assumptions belong? #help#

My blind review for LR is around ~20-23 correct. My average for timed LR is about +17/19. When I took Prep Test 36, I scored 12/26 (raw) and 13/26 (BR). I'm currently reviewing the section and realizing that I'm still stumped on a lot of these questions. This section particularly seems much more difficult to me than any of the previous LR sections I've done (and I've done a lot). I recently read that Test 36 LR 1 is considered one of the more difficult LR sections but I'm wondering if anyone else has had similar experiences with this section?

I'm going to continue to review the video explanations for it and read up on the explanations for as long as I have to in order to gain full understanding. I'm just shocked that I got +12, I feel like this is not representative of how I normally perform. Initially, I thought maybe I was just nervous, but now that I'm looking at the questions, I'm realizing this section is just confusing to me for some reason.

Thoughts?

https://www.reddit.com/r/LSAT/comments/71zteo/hardest_most_difficult_lsat_sections_ever_listed/

Hi guys,

I just thoroughly analyzed my June 2007 timed PT (my first timed full PT). I went -3 in one section and -4 in other LR section.

It looks like for maybe about 5 of the 7 questions I got wrong, I got them wrong timed because I missed a key word or distinction from the stimulus or the answer choice.

How would I go about addressing this? I'm already planning on taking the 5 top priority question types and drilling them and doing a confidence drill to see if I can shave off some time in the questions that I was underconfident on. I ended up circling around 14 questions per section for BR and probably about 5 questions per section did not need to be BRed (lack of confidence),where I got those right the first and during BR. If I don't go back to these 5 questions per section, perhaps that will give me more time to focus and look for the missed key word or distinction for the 5 out of 7 questions I got wrong.

Thoughts? Thanks!

Hi guys,

I just finished the CC and took a diagnostic June 2007 timed PT. 160 timed and 170 - 174 BR. My target is 172 - 175.

I also just finished BR'ing, watching the videos, and doing some careful analysis. One question that I am still having trouble on is the following:

I usually do a first pass of an LR section in 25 minutes. That leaves me 10 minutes to go back to questions that I circled to try and answer them before the time is up. At this point, I usually have about 3 questions unanswered and probably about 10 total questions that I circled for BR.

My question is... after my first pass, when I have 10 minutes left, how do I know which exact question to turn to for maximum benefit? I would assume that it would be the lowest hanging fruits. So far, I've just been going back to the first circled question and working my way up.

Thank you!

Can someone help diagram the question below? I'm having a lot of trouble wrapping my head around it.

Manuscripts written by the first time authors generally do not get serious attention by publishers except when these authors happen to be celebrities. My manuscript is unlikely to be taken seriously by the publishers for I am a first time author who is not a celeb.

I diagrammed "except" the same way I would diagram "unless".

not CELEB --> FIRST TIME AU OR not SERIOUS ATTN

When I looked this up, the CORRECT diagram was:

not CELEB --> not FIRST TIME AU OR not SERIOUS ATTN

My first question, Why is it: not FIRST TIME AU?

Second, I'm having trouble diagramming the parallel argument below for the same reasons:

"Fruit salad that contains bananas is ordinarily a boring dish unless it contains two or more exotic fruits. This fruit salad has bands in it, and the only exotic fruit is a guava."

I diagrammed this as follows:

not TWO OR MORE --> contains bananas OR boring

But the correct way to diagram it is:

not TWO OR MORE --> not contains bananas OR boring

Why?

I thought I understood the direction of argument lesson but I just took a timed section and found myself going back and forth when I saw MSS questions. I kept getting confused on whether or not I should look for the MP or a answer choice that strengthened the argument, can someone explain?

I am currently struggling to move past the CC lessons on valid argument forms. With the use of flashcards, I have been able to memorize what the abstract form of each valid argument form looks like. For example, if I am given the premise A-->B and the conclusion B some C, I automatically know that the missing premise needed to restore this argument to validity is A --> C. However, when I see this same valid form in English as opposed to logic I compltely freeze. I have tried writing out my own English statements for each of the valid argument forms. Doing this helped me see how cookie-cutter the valid argument forms are. However, I feel like once I see these argument forms on the LSAT it will not be as cookie-cutter. For example, I recently realized that when I was writing out my own English statements I had failed to take into account that the fact that you can move around premises and still get a valid argument form. For example:

Premise 1: O→K

Premise 2: J‑m→O

Conclusion: J‑m→K

By simply looking at this argument's abstract form, I know that it's a valid argument. It embodies valid argument 5. In the example above, A‑m→B was switched into premise 2 and B→C was switched into premise 1. However, when I see this switch being applied in English, my brain turns into mush. Continuing with the example from above, the English translation would sound something like:

All octopuses are kind. Most people named James are octopuses. Most people named James are kind.

Octopuses= O

Kind=K

James=J

Right??

I am aware that on the LSAT, the topics in the stimulus questions that require your understanding of validity are going to be a lot more challenging. That's why I am looking to get some insight in terms of how to solve this issue. I really appreciate your time!

We will be hosting a Blind Review Session for the first Logical Reasoning Section of Prep Test 66 on Sunday March 15th at 3:00 pm Pacific Coast (6:00 pm East Coast).

This will be a peer lead review and we will be going over flagged questions chosen by the group. Prior to the blind review session please complete Prep Test 66, and complete your own blind review. Do Not check your answers. We will be focusing on process, understanding and strategy.

The link to join is below:

https://join.skype.com/HW01DVXTluPk

Note: You do not need to join our study group or preparing for the June Test to join this review session, all levels are welcomed

So I did a little experiment and did 3 questions from each Logical Reasoning stem and found that no matter how hard I try I keep getting Strengthening, Weakening, and Necessary Assumption questions wrong. It is probably my weakest LR family type I don't know if my brain just is not smart enough for the LSAT or it's because there is something off with my reasoning skills, but even after going over CC in this area I can't seem to get questions from the Assumption family correct no matter how hard I try.

Any tips?

Thank you 7Sage !

I always think this now when doing LR questions when the answer choices are completely irrelevant to the question.

I've been wondering about a different approach to answering the questions in LR sections, in hopes of improving time and accuracy....has anyone heard of an approach where you would answers the LR questions by the type of question (MP, MSS, etc) instead of numerical order? For example, answering all of the MP questions first then tackling all of the MSS question and so on. Instead of jumping our minds from one type of question to another, could it help to tackle all the same type of questions together and then move on? Thoughts?

I'm currently looking for one or max two study partners who I can drill ALOUD with on Ellen Cassidy's Basic Translation and What If? test methods.

Some soft prerequisites:

Has thoroughly read through Ellen Cassidy's "The Loophole in LSAT Logical Reasoning" and is committed to adopting and practicing her ways

Someone who wants extra practice in assumption spotting in LR OUT LOUD

BR in the170s

Preferably Pacific time zone

Flexible scheduling (meet via Discord 2-3x/week for 1-1.5 hours)

Look forward to connecting with you! Please message me if you are interested!

I'm confused by the question stem here:

The information above provides the LEAST support for which one of the following?

When I read the explanation, it said this is a MBT question. I thought this was a MBT EXCEPT question stem.

https://forum.powerscore.com/lsat/viewtopic.php?t=9232

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-26-section-3-question-20/

I am unsure of what the problem is. I believe it may be an insufficient ability to translate English into Lawgic. Often times the ones I seem to get correct, my English---->Lawgic translation is incorrect.

I would like to continue through the course and just keep this weakness in the back of my mind. But I also would not like to do that at my own detriment. My questions are as follows:

Where can I go to practice these English ----> Lawgic translations without wasting the precious resources of actual problem sets.

Can I just go through the rest of the course while working on that and then return the MBT/SA questions at a later date?

Hello fellow sagers, I have recently finished the CC and now onto drilling and correcting and that whole process. I just took PT36 after completing CC as some suggested and I want to learn some strategies that will get the most out of reviewing. Planning on writing for April 2020

I like the BR method but had a question on how to approach review after BR, particularly for LR. The way I am going about it now is that I consolidate all the High urgency questions, tell myself why I though the answer was right then watch the explanation video.

Is this a good way to go about it? Any advice on strategy that'll truly improve understanding or anything I should add to my process that you find helpful?

Hi,

What are the best strategies for high scorers on reading comprehension with the new digital format? On paper with minimal underlining, I was averaging about -3 wrong per RC section. I read the powerscore rc bible a few months ago and generally did not find their viewstamp analysis to be particularly useful. With playing around with the electronic underlining and highlighting features, I think I will just never use them as they are more finicky than useful. I just finished the core curriculum for logic games and logical reasoning, so I will start the reading section of the curriculum now. Does the 7sage cc on reading still apply? Is it worthwhile? What changes with switch to tablet? Any other tips or advice on how to approach the reading comprehension on new format?

Thanks for the help!

Hey 7sagers,

Right now in the -1 to -0 range in LG (Full proofed 30 - 60). However, the substitution LG question stem in the 60+ test seems to get me. Do folks have any recommendations on how to attack it? Any patterns they see? Any book recommendations to read on this?

Thanks for the advice in advance.... :)

RC success is a function of knowing what to read for and a healthy balance of focus and confidence. Without confidence, it is hard to really focus. Knowing what to read for helps to build confidence, which increases your willingness and ability to focus.

I will briefly discuss how you can practice knowing what to read for below. This is difficult at first, but gets easier with repetition- the more you do it, the faster and more accurate you become.

First, why RC? Why does LSAC care to test us on RC and what do they really want us to do?

In law school, we will be reading tons of cases written by judges. It will be our job to discern the main point of the case, determine what the judge really thinks, and how they build their argument. Once we have this understanding, we can (with the help and insights of professors) analyze the strength of the argument and think about its implications.

The LSAT tests our ability to identify the main point or thrust of an argument, discern the authors’s view, and be able to see the author’s logical progression to the main point or conclusion, in other words to map the blueprint of the argument.

The questions are almost all based around these elements. By reading with the intent of figuring these things out before the questions, the questions fly by. This is analogous to making up front inferences during Logic Games.

RC is hard because we are not used to reading and thinking in this manner. Most of the things we read, we just skim.

So here is a template to fill out when you read RC. Filling this out yourself will get you in the habit of consciously thinking about the things LSAC requires of you. The more you do this, the better your ability will become. After writing these things out many times, you will eventually be able to hold these elements in your mind. This is how comfort, speed, and accuracy is built. So focus on filling this template out untimed at first. Then hit the questions. During the questions, you will find that you have thought about many of the concepts asked if you already.

So here is the template:

Paragraph #1 Low Resolution Summary:

Author’s separate paragraphs to signal a shift in ideas. Each paragraph is the reporting of a different idea. We want to identify what that idea is.

We are looking to summarize the takeaway from the paragraph. This will show us 3 or 4 different ideas. Then we take these ideas and examine how they relate. The relationships of the paragraphs come together to allow us to see the takeaway of the whole thing.

P2:

P3:

P4:

Main Point? - What does the author want you to take away from this? What are they trying to argue, show, or tell you about?

Author’s tone? - Where do they show their opinion and what is it? Pay close attention to when the author is speaking versus when they are telling you about the opinions of others. Do not conflate the 2!

Argument Structure?-

How does each paragraph relate to one another? Use your low res summaries to tell a story. For example: Paragraph 1 tells us about a strange phenomenon, Paragraph 2 then gives us Jones explanation for the phenomenon, Paragraph 3 introduces Kate and she offers a different explanation for the phenomenon, Paragraph 4 ends with the author telling us why they think Kate’s explanation is better than Jones’.

Analyzing an RC passage and doing this is time consuming and even draining- for harder passages it will take me sometimes 1.5 hours to fully feel like I have a full understanding of the passage. This is normal, take your time and shoot for quality of training over quantity. Knowing deep down that you have a true understanding of the passage is how you develop confidence! Like I said earlier, this process will start out slow and painful, but it will pay off if you stick with it.

Once you have completed the template, and feel comfortable with it, you are ready to hit the questions.

More so than LR, you need to take your time to fully understand the question stems, or what is being asked if you. For example, in LR a stem may ask you which AC most strengthens the argument. You can read this and know your task in about 2 seconds because you have seen hundreds of these. However, an RC stem is more likely to be unique, specific, and its meaning may turn on a single word. So it is important to take your time with stems.

Use Pre Phrasing! After reading the stem, answer the question in your own words. Think about what a credited answer choice might be. For example, if the question asks you what an author would most likely agree with, think about what you know about the author’s opinion. This type of conscious thought before looking at answer choices will make you less prone to traps and more efficient. It also forces you to full understand the question stem. I found that many of my mistakes were a product of not understanding the task at hand.

Steps:

1.Fill out template untimed (this will take forever at first)

2. Analyze the questions. Read the stem and pre phrase before looking at answer choices. Write out justifications for every answer choice, right or wrong.

3. Take a break, reset your brain, repeat

4. Check answers/grade

5. Over time this will become easier and you can try doing 2 passages in one sitting

6. Once you can do 2 passages in one sitting and go -1 or -0 per passage, you are ready to add in timing

7. Complete a 35 minute strictly timed RC section. Pick the 2 passages you found most difficult and complete the template and question justifications, untimed.

8. Keep an excel sheet tracking your results, timing, and takeaways. Before you take a timed section, revisit this sheet and set intentions/ goals going into the section.

Hey folks,

I've been studying for the LSAT for quite a long time now, and while my accuracy has improved, I still find myself missing hard questions—4/5 stars. There isn't a question type pattern or anything when the difficulty rises, I tend to miss the question. Do you have any tips, ideas, tricks, or anything that could help me get better when dealing with difficult questions?

Cheers,

Isn’t there an assumption w/ C? That the songs they were asked to write for movie soundtracks were written for those movie soundtracks? If I’m a movie producer and I ask a hit song writer to write a song for a movie sound track and they say no and write it instead for radio, how does that imply that the song was written for a movie soundtrack? Why is “Such songs” taken to reference “songs written for movie soundtracks” rather than referencing “those songs that movie producers (or whoever asks) asked writers to make for movie sound tracks,” because where the former implies they were written for movies, the latter does not.

They sometimes decline, because although “songs written for movie soundtracks” frequently become hits, their writers receive single up front payments rather than continued revenues from airplay.

Versus

They sometimes decline, because although “songs which movie producers asked hit song writers to write” frequently become hits, their writers receive single up front payments rather than continued revenues from airplay.

The latter example opens up the scenario that a movie producer could of asked a hit song writer to write a song for a movie sound track. The writer could reject the offer and write it instead for radio. In this case the song was never written for a movie soundtrack to begin.

It’s a small and reasonable assumption but it felt strange making in a MBT, I would of expected it to be reasonable in a MSS.

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-83-section-1-question-13/

Hi,

Would anyone be able to explain why the answer here is B instead of E? I couldn't find any direct evidence showing how E is wrong

#help

Thanks!

Hi all. Sorry if this is something JY has directly spoken to in lessons, as I just have a free account here. But I was wondering: would it be safe to say that in any in/out game with a biconditional that says two elements can never be together, it’ll be worthwhile to create multiple game boards?

I just took PT 83 and missed a great opportunity to split the third game along the N/R biconditional that the rules create, and I’m wondering if I could have just automatically assumed it was worthwhile to split once I found that biconditional. Thanks!