Hi all. I took my LSAT Writing sample for the August 2020 test at the beginning of September. With 18 minutes on the clock, the program froze and deleted everything I had written. I speed rewrote my essay but obviously it wasn't the best it could be. When I got the receipt of my essay, I saw a typo, too. I called LSAC the next day and told her about my issue and asked to reset it, and she said she would. Now it's September 16 and I'm still not seeing any change under my LSAT Writing tab. Score release is supposed to be in two days.

I'm on the phone with LSAC again and the lady (who is super nice) told me that she had no record of me asking to reset my sample and if I reset it now, I may not get my August score back until October 7. I'm signed up for the October LSAT so obviously I'd like to get my August LSAT back before then. She read my sample and told me that it's really good and told me there was only one typo in it. Is is worth resetting my sample? I'm applying with a low GPA so I really want every other part of my application to be the best it could possibly be, but I'm wondering if I'm just putting too much energy into something that's not really worth it. It is unscored, after all.

Hey everybody, If anyone needs any help with LG I can help increase your score! I’ve done all the available games through 7Sage (I think 380 games in total). Please please message me if you need help!

Hey all, so I am just concerned with my actual skill in LG. I just spent about 3 and a half months foolproofing every game I did within the first 35 PTs. Every game that I come back to review and have already FoolProofed, I ace it. Done in time, and every question right. I remember most of every inference, especially for more difficult games. The dilemma lies in the fact that when I arrive upon a NEW game that I have never seen before, I tend to struggle, a lot. This makes me feel as if my FoolProofing was for nothing - just because I can remember every inference that I have already seen, yet still cant make them on my own very well when I see new games. Really stressed and just want to start PTing, as I have done everything I can so far to get to that point.

Any help appreciated.

Hello! I've been scoring around a -4/-5 on LR the past few weeks. I'm looking for advice on how to increase my accuracy even further. I also find I spend a lot of time on parallel flaw questions and will still end up getting them wrong. I'd appreciate any advice for how to be more efficient on those. Thank you so much in advance!

I struggled with learning the 21 common flaws when I first started studying them, it wasn't enough to just drill them and memorize. The flaws were more fun to learn when I matched the logical fallacies and found examples; so I did my best to create a table with just that. I'm no expert so if any of the logical fallacies don't match please let me know so I can edit! Hope this makes drilling the flaws easier :)

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZLYOD9ej4Rm96yiUiV1p61TONQr0sS7WFv-CyWtJ070/edit?usp=sharing

Some more resources on logical fallacies;

https://www.logicalfallacies.org/

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/

Hey everyone,

I range from -12 to -3 on timed LR sections on my PTs. Does anyone have suggestions? I've gone through the Powerscore LR Bible, it didn't help me much. I blind review and can usually correct myself. I just can't manage to stay consistent with my LR scores :/

Hi Everyone. My biggest struggle is logical reasoning and timing . I’m always able to bring the answer choices down to two and then end up picking the wrong answer but the correct answer was the other choice. Please help on tips/ strategies.

I noticed that JY provides a goal time for every Logic Game, but that there is also a goal time for each question when reviewing answers. These do not always correspond. Which is the correct one to refer to?

Could any one help me explain this?

I dunt know wjy C

Disclaimer: I'm not claiming to be an RC expert, but I've seen huge improvement in a short time period (roughly two months) and would like to share how.

Starting out I was abysmal at RC and things stayed that way as I was told RC is the "least improvable" area. Fast forward and this is my most improved section. So what changed?

I started doing additional reading pretty well every evening for about an hour. I've been reading some dense literature, Dostoevsky's Demons in particular. I atrribute an increased facility in reading passages to this additional reading practice.

I read the LSAT Trainer's tips for RC. The main points can summarized as follows: routinely ask yourself why the author is writing what they are, what the purpose of each pargraph you read is in relation to the passage as a whole, and what the main point of the passage is.

Using J.Y's "active reading" technique. After each paragraph I read I force myself to jot down a summary/main idea of it. Knowing I have to write something down while reading has indeed helped me read with more purpose, and force me to better understand paragraphs before moving on.

Reading a new RC passage or two every single day and doing a thorough BR. I'll often sit and analyse every single question and make sure I'm confident of my choice before I move on. My BRs typically last 30 minutes to an hour.

Reading articles on Sciencenews.org. The broader your knowledge base, the better equiped you are for whatever a passage throws at you. Moreover, these passages ressemble actual RC passages and I've even been able to implement similar techniques while reading them (ie: asking what the purpose of a paragraph is and how it relates to the main point of the article).

I've starting listening to "A Skeptic's Guide to the Universe" podcast. As a foreign languages major my science knowledge is weak, and I think it's possible that listening to discussion of science topics by experts has helped me improve in this regard. Plus it's just genuinely interesting material and once again adds to your knowledge base!

I've seen lots of RC struggles posts on here lately so I felt this write up would be timely. Let me know what you think!

Hi,

Can anyone explain why B is right here?

It seems, when watching JY's explanation, that the reason why B is right is because it provides an explanation for the phenomena-- perhaps the other dinosaur was a baby, and that is why it has T-rex features but small size. However, when I tried to flesh this explanation out, it just didn't seem to work:

if the dinosaur is really old, it strengthens the argument by giving an example of a dinosaur that has T-rex features but is small

if the dinosaur is a baby, it still seems to strengthen the argument by giving an example of a dinosaur that has T-rex features but is small

Thus, even though it does provide an explanation for the phenomena seen in the argument, I don't see how the dinosaur being a baby would provide an alternative explanation that could weaken the stimulus' argument when the argument never gave an explanation for the phenomena in the first place.

Hope that makes sense to people reading this

Any #help would be appreciated!

Thanks!

Hey guys, I just wanted some advice on how to go about closing the gap before the NOV LSAT comes through.

So I recently did a section and actually incorporated BR (I know it's praised here, I usually just file the section / PT as done and review questions I got wrong not BR format but by watching videos on them).

Anyways outside of this section (and PT 62 LR in general, wow it was tough) I would usually get -10/-9. I am very confident I understand the material well but timing is tough, and under timed conditions I think I might over stress myself / choose convenient answers just to beat the time.

Any advice on how to continue from here? I'm really trying to push for a 164+!

I think ad-hominem is often colloquially defined as a direct character attack: Jim says the earth is flat but Jim is an idiot therefore Jim must be incorrect. This is probably the most common iteration of ad-hominem.

But contrary to popular notions of an ad-hominem, LSAC defines ad-hominem as anything that distracts from the argument at hand and redirects the aim toward the maker of the argument. To this end, I've also seen ad-hominem take the form of:

Attacking the interest/motivations of the argument maker: Jim says the earth is flat but Jim runs a flat-earth film festival every year so Jim has an interest in getting more flat-earthers to show up to his event. Therefore, Jim must be incorrect.

Attacking the past actions of the argument maker: Jim says smoking is harmful for your health but Jim smokes 2 packs of cigarettes per day therefore there is reason to question Jim's beliefs.

Hypocrisy: Jim believes that reality is only an illusion yet Jim has worked strenuous a 9-5 job for 30 years to provide for his family. Clearly Jim's beliefs to not match his actions therefore those beliefs are questionable.

Apologies if this is pedantic but almost got a question wrong because of this and I thought I'd flush this out on a post.

Are there any other types of ad-hominem that you are aware of? Trying to make a list.

I have been grinding out Logic Games, both timed and untimed, and I've made little to no progress in terms of my ability to make proper inferences. Even with less pressure in an untimed setting. Has anybody else run into this issue? I have made substantial improvements in both LR and RC, but this section is my absolute worst by far. I am a shoe in for a -12/-13 on my timed PTs and it is honestly pretty discouraging, especially since I have seen that this should be the "easiest" section to improve in. Does anybody have some good suggestions for someone who is struggling mightily with games? I would really appreciate any advice at this point. This is literally a make or break section for me in terms of me getting at or above my desired score. Thanks so much guys.

please go over PT1 S3 Q12

Struggled with this one. Can someone process this with me? Thanks

Does anyone have any advice on how to get through LG more quickly? I have additional 50% time accommodations on the LSAT so that's what I practice with and I still feel rushed and can't always finish. What takes me the most time is problems where it seems like I have to test out every answer choice. On PT 68 I got -11 and -1 BR on the LG section so I know I can do the games it's just timing

Hi, everyone. I am currently reading a textbook of Australian Torts Law, and the following sentences really confused me.

"However, there are four exceptions to the requirement of actual or constructive possession. The common feature of each of the exceptions is a notional possession by the person out of actual possession, through either possession through another in respect of whom there is an association, or where a gap in possessory title to sue might occur." Would anyone explain the words in bold to me please? What does it mean by "through either possession through another"???

Thank you!!!

I noticed that for this question we are being presented with a principle in the stimulus. The principle used conditional logic:

Intended General Audience ------> book has to discuss aesthetics and utility

In order for the conclusion to be true, the principle has to then be "activated." In order for that to happen you must either 1. satisfy the sufficient or 2. negate the necessary. The answer choice ended up satisfying this sufficient.

This isn't the first NA question that I have seen structured this way. I am not sure if this is an observation worth noting for future NA questions. I have only done a handful of NA questions so far, so I would definitely appreciate some insight.

Also, if there is a flaw in my reasoning I would really appreciate the feedback:)

Thanks in advance!

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-21-section-3-question-06/

I'm currently working on drilling NA and have gone back to re-do the CC lessons on negation. I have slowly started to find success in applying Ellen Cassidy's strategy of finding the loophole in the argument. For this stimulus, my loophole was: What if psychotherapy helps treat the chemical imbalance? Just because you don't know about the imbalance doesn't mean that there isn't a possibility that the current treatment would help address it. After reading answer choice A, I immediately circled it. However, I decided to read through all the other answer choices. I was able to easily eliminate B and C. B addressees a comparative issue that was not directly addressed in the stimulus. Meanwhile, C simply did nothing for the argument. I was left with A, D, and E. A fit my loophole nicely, but D seemed so tempting. I ended up negating the answers, but it seems like I negated them incorrectly. Would appreciate it if someone could check my negations:

For A, I negated it to:

Treatment by psychotherapy can produce some effective reduction in or correction of chemical imbalances ......

For D, I negated it to:

Either psychotherapy is more effective or there is a tie between the effectiveness of medication and psychotherapy, in regards to trying patients with mental disorders.

How would you negate answer choice "E"

Also, why are D and E worth eliminating?

Thanks in advance!

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-4-question-08/

How did you rule out Answer Choice "C"? Some folks mentioned, the AC gives only "what's valued" and that doesn't constitute a resolution. What if, people got better at being ambidextrous as they grew older and that's why the % of LH Population drops as you grow older?

I have been struggling with two different types of RC questions recently, InfAp and RecMP. Does anyone have any tips to help out with those specifically or RC in general? Thanks!

In the PT I am taking there is a flex option that removes a LR section. Is it random/have any significance?

AGGGGHHHH.

I started out with RC being my best section, and since I've improved so heavily on LG and LR, RC is now my worst section. Welp. Currently, I'm averaging -3 for LG, and -3 for LR. But -7 for RC!!!!!!! WHYYYY

I'm taking the November test, and really need to drill RC HARD before then. In total, I've probably studied for the LSAT for close to 6-8 months now (spread out at different times) and I feel like I've made the LEAST effort for RC because it doesn't really excite me lol and I guess I was discouraged when people said you can make the least improvement for RC.

ALL AND ANY TIPS WELCOME for: RC drills, RC improvement, etc.