Hi,

The answer for this question is B. I understand why B is right, but I was not able to fully eliminate why D is wrong (I understand why A, C, and E are wrong). The reason why I am still not sure why D is wrong is because D states that, "the highER costs..." thus implying that brand-name drugs are more expensive than generic drugs and thus supporting the conclusion of the passage (that generic drugs costs less but are just as good as brand-name drugs).

Any #help would be appreciated!

Thanks!

#help This question gave me trouble but I think I understand now. Here's my explanation, please let me know if it's right.

Conclusion: early detection of fire is no more likely now than it was 10 years ago

Premise1: 10 years ago 30% of houses had detectors, now 45% do

Premise2: but over half detectors are either inoperable or don't have batteries.

I chose A which says "15% of detectors were installed over the last 10 years." This isn't a trigger for the conclusion, and it doesn't connect the dots, because this premise just doesn't lead the premises any closer to the conclusion. If we said "All detectors installed in the last 10 years, which accounts for 15% total, are all defected or inoperable" this would guarantee the conclusion. This would allow us to say that indeed even though there are more detectors total, early detection is still equally likely as it was 10 years ago.

D makes sense now but I eliminated it because it doesn't need to be that the detectors are inoperable (which is 1 explanation of the 2), they could just have no batteries (the 2nd of the 2 explanations). I thought "D doesn't need to be true, there could be an alternate explanation." However, this explanation, despite the existence of other explanations, does connect the dots between the premises and the conclusion. Now we could say we have more detectors overall, but the proportion of inoperable detectors increased a lot so now the early detection rate is the exact same.

A parallel argument would be "We installed 15% more security cameras than a year ago but vandalism rates are the same. This is because the proportion of working security cameras dropped over the last year. As a result, roughly the same amount of security cameras were of use, and we weren't able to prevent more vandalism despite having more cameras."

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

By way of background, I've taken the LSAT once (January of 2020). I've finished the core curriculum and I have worked through probably 40 practice tests' worth of logic games. I've worked through these games at least twice and have watched the JY explanation videos to understand how to correctly solve any that gave me issues.

With all of that said, I'm still not scoring how I'd like to on the section (I usually hover around -4 but it can go up to -7 on a tough section). LG is also the only thing holding me back from scoring in the 170s which is what I'm aiming for in my June 2020 retake.

I definitely think a part of the issue is psychological. If I encounter a game that catches me off-guard, I freeze up. I start to feel sort of warm, like the blood is rushing to my head, and I start to make very basic mistakes, such as mislabeling a simple sequencing rule-that I otherwise would label correctly. Often, I'll blind review games in which this occurred, and I'll get every or most questions correct.

I'm sort of at a loss on what to do to improve. One thing I have not tried is working through a book such as the Powerscore Logic Games Bible.

Any advice on how to practically improve, or how to sort this this mental barrier, would be much appreciated!

I chose (E). I had thought that the discrepancy was how is it that a restaurant with worse food could be more popular. Assuming this is the discrepancy, would (E) not justify the conclusion? We are told Traintrack has a better location and this brings in customers, but there is still a gap: how is better location enough to compensate for having worse food? (E) tells how, food is irrelevant to the popularity of a restaurant. But from what I got from the explanation is that the actual discrepancy the question wants us to focus on is how is it that a more popular restaurant offers worse food? Did I just miss what the question was truly asking for?

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

Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-82-section-4-question-21/

Hello 7Sagers,

I was wondering if anyone could help me clear up some fogginess im experiencing while drilling LR?

So i am aware i must understand what the stimulus is saying as well as be able to identify the conclusion and premises. However, im having the hardest time retaining the information when i get to the answer choices. I know what the stimulus is saying most of the time and i go to the answer choices with confidence. However, i notice i am begining to get problems wrong that have more condeluded stimuli.

How do i keep the conclusion and premises in my head clear while trying out different answer choices? I feel i get what the premises and conclusion is for the stimulus but when i try to recall it i have to say it a couple of times to remember it so i wont forget when moving to the answer choices.

What do you all do?

Hi everyone –

I've been studying for a few months and am using all the study materials I can (I'll test in August or September). I am not, however, getting much better at Logic Games. I've done them a LOT and my setups are generally correct, but I completely choke when looking at the questions, and I take too long doing them. I also don't see inferences, or I take too long to see them. Not sure how to proceed or get better. Any tips?

J

Should I be foolproofing the games that are part of the core curriculum or should I only start foolproofing games when I finish the cc and start drilling and taking practice tests?

Thanks

Hey everyone! I'm currently looking to improve my RC score - I get average 8-9 wrong in the section and would really like to see that number get lower. I've

So I've been struggling with logic games, and this doesn't change that, BUT I think things are slightly less bad than I'd thought:

I've been stressing about my performance on LG sections given a three-star difficulty rating by 7sage. I've been thinking, "ugh, this is just on the average LG section, which, given that tests have been getting harder, will likely be easier than whatever's on my actual test." But when I checked this out, I realized that of the PTs since #80, only ONE has gotten a rating higher than three stars! (#88, a 5-star section)

So obviously, this doesn't mean that my test's LG section is gonna be easy, or even that it won't be the hardest I've ever taken. But it does mean that 3-star LG sections are around as hard as they generally have been, of late.

Hi everyone! I've been preparing since the middle of December for the April administration. I've spent most of that time learning and drilling the fundamentals (mostly from the trainer) before getting into full PTs, so I've only taken 9 of those so far.

Recently, I've been getting -2 to -5 overall (not per section) on LR and averaging about -3.5, but I just took PT 73 and only got 1 wrong. Overall I feel good about the questions, although I work much more intuitively than by following the methods strictly and am not 100% confident on at least a couple per section. I've heard great things about Loophole, but I'm a little worried that a new approach will hurt my performance at this level and I won't be able to correct in time for the April test.

I'm wondering if I should work through Loophole or just keep practicing, review better and see if I can get the last couple of questions that way.

Has anyone been in the same position? Did adjusting your approach hurt your score?

Thanks!

Hey 7Sagers,

Here's the official February 2020 LSAT Discussion Thread.

**Please keep all discussions of the February 2020 LSAT here!**(/red)

Rules:

✅ You can identify experimental sections. 🙆‍♀️

You can say things such as the following:

❌ You can't discuss specific questions. 🙅‍♂️

You CANNOT say things such as the following:

Hi everyone,

I recently began the logic game curriculum and have been doing the LG drill sets. As you know there are two games per set. I'm usually finishing at least game with 100% accuracy but unable to finish the second game during the ~17 minute time limit. As I continue going through the drills and blind review, I'm wondering what people suggest aiming for during the blind review of a full logic game section?

I know, ideally we should all want to reach for -0 in blind review for every section. But, for someone wanting to score in the mid 160s, what is a promising score/range for a LG blind review?

Thanks!

When answering necessary assumption questions in LR, how do you not fall for the trap answer choices that provide a sufficient assumption? I am finding that when given a SA answer choice, I will often select it.

Thanks in advance!

Do we review after each section or after the entire test?

Hey everyone! So I'm really struggling with the lesson on drawing valid conclusions. Particularly, the quiz titled "Quiz on Drawing Valid Conclusions with Translations z w/ Answers" and every subsequent one. I know that the lessons are cumulative, so I haven't been able to do any other LR lessons until I surpass this one and fully understand it. Has anyone else struggled with this particular quiz/lesson too? if so, are there any tips, tricks, or additional resources out there that can assist me in understanding and moving past this lesson?

Thanks in advance!

If you have two separate conditionals both with the same suf or nec condition, but the modifiers for the suf or nec condition are different in each sentence, are the statement letters the same?

All cats which are furry and cute eat dogs

C->D

All cats which are bald and ugly eat dogs.

C->D or should it be C'->D

Alternatively, are "furry and cute" and "bald and ugly" simply subsets of cats? Does the necessary condition of D have two different sufficient conditions in this context?

Thank you!

I only got to the Logic Games section of the Core Curriculum two days ago, and I just finished Problem Set 4. The problem sets on the CC are all 2 games each, which should be done in 17.5 mins. However, I'm getting them done in like 30 mins which is way over the time limit, but I've gotten all the answers right (every single one) and my methodology is right.

Is it bad it's taking me this long to do them (as I only recently started), or am I expected to be doing them within the lsat time period (17 mins) as a beginner? Will my timing improve as I go on? I'm worried.

[Resolved]

I just finished the CC and am beginning to foolproof games as they are by far my weakest subject (-9 to -13 on a mid-160 test). Unfortunately, I am out of games from the CC to drill and I would like to save as many PT's as possible as I plan to study for at least another six months to a year. Is there any resource for getting the games from PT 1-35 that doesn't include paying for the upgrade to ultimate+? I heard there used to be a LG bundle but LSAC took it away. Any help would be appreciated, thank you!

When I took the July test, I received a digital exam. I don't own a tablet, so prior to the exam I had practiced using the digital interface provided by LSAC but on a laptop (yes, this was before I had 7Sage - that was my first mistake!)

I guess I didn't think about the fact that highlighting / underlining is much easier when you can actually click or use a touch pad on a laptop than when you're using an unfamiliar tablet on the exam. Consequently, I spent a good bit of time in the RC section trying desperately to highlight and underline things since that was the method I was familiar with. This was another big mistake because RC is my toughest section to finish and that time lost was really valuable.

I'm retaking on the 22nd, and in my practice I've just decided that it isn't even worth it to try to highlight or emphasize things using the tools provided in the interface during the actual test and I've practiced with just doing my high / low res outlines on paper instead.

Has anyone else had this experience?

Hello all,

I've been attacking logical reasoning pretty intensely lately and blind reviewing most, if not all of my timed sections. On my good days I am scoring about 17 correct. Today I scored 20/26, which I am very happy with. However this +20 isn't consistent for me. I would say I'm usually scoring ~17/~18 more often than +20. I'd like to make the +20 consistent. Aside from BR, which I am doing, do any of you have any other suggestions to break through LR? In an ideal world I would be getting them all right but I'll settle for +20 on exam day.

Recently I started reviewing my old wrong answers more regularly. To do this, I print out a fresh copy of the test, cut out all of the questions I circled, which indicates the questions I struggled with while the clock was running. I also cut out all of the questions I got wrong. After I have my stack of issue questions, I review them again and try to answer them on my own and write down the explanation or something that I missed initially, on the back. Then, I put them all in a zip lock bag. Before I go to work and before I get home, I select a handful and review them leisurely for 10-15 minutes. I have only been doing this for a few days but I am hoping that I will find it helpful over the next couple of weeks.

I also started a "wrong answers" journal. Here I will usually write down my reasoning for picking certain answers that ultimately end up being wrong, and then I write the explanation and try to identify patterns in my poor decision making. In doing so I have found some trends. For instance, in the past I used to pick the answer choice that strengthened the argument for necessary assumption questions or MSS, for some reason. Now I don't. But this method combined with cutting out my issue questions has only made a tiny dent in my progress.

Something I have noticed is, when I am scoring 17-20 right, I get 9-10 correct of the first 10. However, I'm only getting to 21-22/25-26 questions and I'm blind guessing on the 3-4 that I do not have time for. Of these 3-4 that I do not have time for, I usually get 2-3 correct during my blind review. I will say that I am slow when answering the first 10 questions. I spend about 13-15 minutes on the first 10. I'm trying to shave this down to 10-12 minutes but I'm struggling to do so. I have found that I get hung up on 1-2 during the first 10, either because I am misreading something or because the language and wording is convoluted and trips me up mid way and then causes my delay. This seems inevitable but perhaps there is a way around this? I have tried skipping these in the past but it only gives me anxiety later on because I'm worried I skipped an easy question.

Lastly, my blind review scores are usually between 20-23 ish.

Anyone know of any additional resources or advice that really helped push them over the edge on their LR success? I'm very desperate to keep improving on LR since it has been my biggest weakness on the exam and my journey to improve on this section has been a very slow and painful one.

Thanks in advance for any advice you may have.

If I negate "all", it becomes "not all." But doesn't "not all" imply two distinct possibilities, namely, "some" and "none"? If I negate the statement "all turtles are slow" as "it is not the case that all turtles are slow." Can't it either mean "some turtles are not slow" (there is at least one turtle that is NOT slow out of all the turtles on this earth) or "none of the turtles are slow" (they are ALL FAST AND FURIOUS BEASTS.) When I negate a conditional statement in LSAT, should I be mindful of these two distinct possibilities?

Any reply is welcome.

Thanks.

I'm constantly getting tripped up over some of the language in Method of Reasoning answer choices. Can someone dumb down the explanation of "an overly broad generalization" for me?

In my head, this is a statement about ALL of something based on ONE example. Whenever I see this in an answer choice I get really insecure and am hesitant. But because it "sounds good" and "applicable" I pick it under time pressure, which is not always the smartest thing to do.

So, during this video JY says that answer choice A is wrong because of the strict standards of a must be true question. I was just wondering if A. would be correct if it was a MSS question. Basically, if I still have to make a bigger assumption than is warranted for a MSS. https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-86-section-4-question-20/

If we are told, as X increases Y increases. Can we infer that as Y increases X increases?

Hi everyone,

I've been following 7sage for a while now. I have been studying for the LSAT since June and I am scoring at about 160. I really need to get my reading comp score up! I am taking the February LSAT next week and I've tried many approaches. If anyone has anything (especially if it works quickly) I'd love to hear it.

Thank you!