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.

Hey y'all, I am struggling on Logic reasoning. I have taken the lsat august for the second time and I am scared it's not the score I want. In order to prevent taking it again on October and not getting the score back, I am planning on taking it in November. Any advice on how to improve LR in the next 2 months? PLEASSSSEEEE HELPPPP.

any structure schedule I should be following? I'm honestly drained. I keep getting 10-14 wrong on LR Sections.

Hi everyone.

I just did PT 2 game 4 and got crushed by the amount of inferences that were needed in order to figure out the game. Does anyone have some games similar to this in mind? I think this is where my focus should go.

Thanks!

On some of these exercises, on these I’m improving to 4/5, on the previous set however, SA, it’s a total loss. I’m wondering just how much of the LSAT is going to be comprised of SA. I have literally spent two maybe three weeks trying to understand this, going back and listening and re-listening to JY and it is not taking, so I’m beginning to feel that I’m spending WAY too much time on this vs other huge problem areas like logic games. Suggestions from those who have taken the LSAT? Taking in January.

Has there ever been a weakening or strengthening correct answer choice which uses the word some or many? If so which pt section and question?

I just got finished with 81.3.16 about financial incentives to conserve energy. The trap AC would have been perfect if we changed "some" to most or all, and I know this happens frequently. I was a bit shocked at the correct AC, however, and am now curious enough to see if some/many are essentially instant disqualifiers.

Hi all the purpose of this post is twofold: to teach everything I know about phenomenon hypothesis (PH) and correlation causation (CC) argument types, as well as to be a knowledge check where other people can correct me and make sure my understanding is solid. I'll start with PH, then go through CC, and then I'll show how both argument types are very similar.

In PH arguments, we have something that happens in the real world, then we offer an explanation of why that thing is the way it is. For instance, I see a bunch of seals barking. Then I see fishermen riding their boats in the harbor. I say, "It must be that seals bark whenever they see fishermen." My phenomenon is "seals bark" and my hypothesis is "they bark when they see fishermen." In lawgic, the SC would be "See fishermen" -> and the NC would be "Bark."

There are a lot of ways to strengthen PH and CC arguments and I'll explain them here: 1. A->B, 2. block B->A, 3. block C->A&B, 4. block "no relation," 5. block bad chronology, and 6. show "good consequences." 7. No cause no effect

A->B really just means "If see fishermen -> bark." This works with PH and CC arguments. How can I show that seals really do bark when they see fishermen? Show more data. a trend of more data. I don't want to see 1 more case of seals barking when they see fishermen, I want to see a lengthy trend of seals barking many times over a long period of time. I have seen at least 2-3 times where the LSAC will use a trap answer where the "strengthening" answer choice just throws in 1 more example of the hypothesis working. "You say seals bark when they see fishermen, well Joe saw a seal barking when fishermen were present." I want to see "over the last 5 years, there's an 85% chance that seals will bark whenever they see fishermen." I don't want a single corroborating example (although this does strengthen the hypothesis very, very, very slightly), I want to see a trend.

Block B->A. Let's say my argument is "When the sun shines, then my trees grow." To show that B actually causes A is a little weird in this case, but it would go like this: "My trees growing actually cause the sun to shine." If the latter case were true, then my argument that "sun shine -> trees grow" would be ruined! The causality would be flipped the other way around. The B->A style works really well for CC arguments where I'm trying to show that A is causing B; to show B->A, or block B->A can weaken / strengthen the argument.

For example - "When the sun shines, -> trees grow." To strengthen this argument I can block B->A. "It's also not the case that trees growing causes the sun to shine." I'm eliminating the possibility that my causality isn't flipped. To go back to seals, I would block the case that barking (NC) actually is the explanation for the seals to somehow be seeing fishermen (SC). "It's not the case that barking allows the seals to see fishermen."

Block C->A&B = block an alternate explanation.

What if it's the case that shrimp actually cause the seals to bark and the fishermen to appear? In that case my phenomenon hypothesis argument would be ruined. It's not the case that seeing fishermen causes seals to bark. It's something else.

I want to block this alternate explanation: "It's not the case that shrimp cause fishermen to appear and that shrimp cause seals to bark."

In a correlation causation argument, let's say "hearing about earthquakes in the news causes people to dream about earthquakes." But what if everyone was watching a movie about earthquakes, and this movie caused the dreams? We would want to strengthen our argument by blocking an answer choice that says "A recently released movie about earthquakes is known to cause people to dream about earthquakes." We can eliminate the possibility of an alternate explanation, and this strengthens our argument that actually hearing about earthquakes in the news caused dreams.

No relation / 5. bad chronology

Bad chronology goes hand in hand with "No relation" so I'll group them here. "If I study -> get 180." What if I see an independent study that says "studying has been shown to have no effect on your test results."? That would show "no relation."

Likewise, what if I said "Bob studied then he got a 180. Therefore, studying gives you a 180." Then I say "Bob started studying AFTER he got a 180." This shows bad chronology - the effect actually occurred before the alleged cause! Block this to strengthen.

Good consequences

If the phenomenon hypothesis argument is true, I want to show good consequences. If my hypothesis is true, what would happen? Let's say my hypothesis is "If seals see fishermen -> then they bark." Good consequences AC would say "Fishermen have increased in the bay 500% in the last month. Since then, sales of earplugs have increased 1000%." Fishermen are in the bay a lot more, which means seals are barking, and people don't want to listen to that so they buy earplugs.

Another example is "The city is increasing the speed limit by 30mph. Therefore there will be more car wrecks." A good consequences answer choice would say "There have been more speeding tickets since the speed limit increased."

If we take our hypothesis to be true, then make a reasonable assumption of what could happen if the hypothesis were true, we get a "good consequences" answer choice that strengthens the argument.

No cause no effect

Let's take the argument "It's sunny. Therefore my ice cream will melt." If S -> M.

If I show that there's no sun, and indeed my ice cream is not melting, this is good! I strengthen my argument.

However, if I show "Cause with no effect," or "Effect with no cause," these WEAKEN the argument. It's sunny, but my ice cream isn't melting. Or "my ice cream is melting, but it's not sunny!" These weaken.

Hi,

I have trouble understanding answer choice B. What is it like to be ambiguous in an LR stimulus? When I was doing this question under timed, I thought ambiguous notion of knowledge was the author does not state whether her example of some Greek philosophers' opinion is right or wrong. So I chose B. Even after watching the explanation video, I still have trouble understanding why B is wrong and what would a stimulus be like if the correct answer choice were B. Any #help would be appreciated!

Link to the question: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-c2-section-3-question-18/

I have studied LSAT for a while, but I have a timing issue. I recently completed PT 64 and made -12 but -1 in the blind review. Getting -1 in the blind review gives me some confidence that I'm smart enough to get good score on the test, but as long as I cannot complete it within the time limit, there is no way I can get 165+ on LSAT. I think my reading speed is slow and is not very accurate in reading comprehension under the time constraint. Thus, I want to ask anyone how to improve a speed issue and accuracy. Any help will be a great benefit to me!!!

Hey fellow 7Sagers,

I have two quick questions for y'all!

I'm having troubles understanding why JY translates answer answer choice A—that ends up being the right answer—like this:

MPH ----> LS

moreLS = moreH

When answer choice A states "Most people need the love and support of others; without it, they become depressed and unhappy"

I translated it like this "/Love&support --m---> depressed&unhappy," using "without" group 3 translation negate + sufficient. Also, why not inserting most into the arrow?

Cheers,

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/experimental-psychology-pf-question/?ss_completed_lesson=1142

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-32-section-4-question-21/

I don't understand how B is correct. It states that "a piece of narrow floorboard was NOT SIGNIFICANTLY LESS EXPENSIVE than a piece of wide floorboard'." However, how does that translate to narrow boards being more expensive--which I believe would make narrow boards a status symbol. Going by the phrasing- they could be only a little less expensive, or simply the same price. Please help and earn my eternal lsat blessings :)

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-24-section-3-question-23/

Hi all! I'm looking for some advice on how to close the gap between BR and timed logic games scores before the October test. Under timed PT conditions, I might miss up to 4 or 5 questions while I'm able to go -0 redoing games untimed during BR.

Does anyone have advice on how to close this gap, or more specifically how to improve time management on logic games? I've been drilling games regularly and feel pretty confident but for some reason this section sends me into panic mode on practice tests (and the real deal) and my ability to quickly make inferences/set things up properly from the get-go suffers.

Thank you!

Hi all. I just did my LSAT writing for the August test.

With about 18 minutes left, while I was at the end of my second paragraph, the program started lagging significantly and froze. It was stuck like that for a few minutes, and then I saw that my second paragraph had been deleted. I rewrote it and finished the rest of my essay in a rush but did not have time to go back and proofread. Literally as I wrote my final word (typing was still slow for me because of lags), the clock hit 0. After the test I went back and read my essay and there were some typos. Not terrible, but I know that if my work hadn't been deleted, I would've had at least 5 minutes at the end to proofread. Is this worth complaining about and rewriting for? Has anyone had success with redoing their LSAT writing? Thanks!

Congenial guests and plentiful supply (food and drinks) will ensure a successful dinner party. Sylvia has prepared more than enough to eat and drink and her guests are congenial therefore her party is certain to be a success.

I translated this to G & S -> SDP

Sylvia' S & G --> SDP

How is this a flawed reasoning (question stem)?

The only thing I can think of is I either mistranslated the first, when it should be SDP -> G & S

or I am equating more than enough food and drink with GOOD things to eat and drink.

How do you guys translate double negatives??

e.g. dogs cannot fly if they do not have wings.

I translated this as /F ---> /W

or am I supposed to apply the negation to the second part of the sentence and make it: F --> W??

I am having tough time translating sentences with that have negation on both ends.

#help

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-19-section-2-question-22/

Hi,

Like many others, I was stuck between A and C here. However, while I do understand JY's explanation that a "claim" does not need support while an "argument" does, I thought A was correct here because the second sentence of the stimulus (the sentence that gives an example of how evolution would optimize survival for moose) does seem to serve as "support" for the idea that "evolution does not always optimize survival of an organism", thus making the evolution thing an argument rather than a claim. Can anyone explain why C is right and not A?

Any #help would be appreciated!

Admin Note:. https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-81-section-3-question-21/

I'm struggling to understand why A is the correct answer on this question. Anyone understand or want to take a stab at it?

I have been focusing a lot of my studying on LR and LG and have neglected RC for quite a while. I am looking to complete at least one RC passage a day. However, I do want to make sure that I am being strategic about my game plan. In order to get there, I have a few questions that I am hoping to get some input on.

I greatly appreciate any input.

I've been in a weird position where, after getting -2s regularly on LR, I've suddenly fallen down to -5 and even a -8. This became a trend RIGHT before the August LSAT, and even after taking it, hasn't changed at all. I'm feeling pretty discouraged, and was wondering if anyone might have any tips to fix this.

This question proved to be incredibly challenging for me. Could someone please define how the argument used two different uses of the term "selfish?" Thanks in advance!

In a rule like "Either J or K are selected, but not both are selected" in an In Out Game, why is it represented as J(-)not K and not J double not arrow K?? Wouldnt J double not arrow K mean that both are not selected?

So without going into too much detail, there was an AC yesterday on my LSAT that said something along the lines of "Politician A's campaign called all supporters prior to the debate and urged them to call the radio station regardless of who won the debate" Do we have to assume that supporters will call the radio station? I ended up choosing another one because i felt like that was too big of an assumption because i think most people wouldn't listen and follow through. Or maybe I am making a bigger assumption?

all in the title. When are the scores going to be released for this august LSAT administration.

Can someone help explain this question to me? It's the first LR question I haven't been able to understand, even after blind review and review. I chose answer choice B.

Since there are two indicator words- cannot and unless, how should I go about logically mapping this out? They both imply opposite things. Cannot indicates some kind of necessary condition while unless indicates the sufficient. I mapped it out as /6-->B but the answer is actually B-->6 or /6-->/B. I guess Im confused because JY had us do specific processes for each of these indicating words.

The key point is you can immediately rescheduled the exam time by chatting with live representative of ProctorU, do not try to email or call to LSAC, which is a recommendation if you want to reschedule immediately within this round, and also when the final exam time is not yet expired.

While my tragedy is,

I'm taking LSAT-Flex first time, I scheduled my August LSAT-Flex at 10:20AM PDT of Sep.2 which is today, though I'm personally at CA, my residential community is couple of miles away from the wildfire, that's the reason why when viewed the information about reschedule due to wildfire, I never thought I need to, and then is the nightmare beginning. I logged into the ProctorU around one hour earlier, and everything seems great, the timing clock counting well, when the time arrived at about 10:00AM PDT, I noticed the timing clock showed over 50 mins left, I'm curious whether they may change the scheduled time due to some reason? After ten mins later, I finally realized there is no internet because my other opened website showed so, even though ProctorU timing clock still counting. I started to repeatedly retart the internet and check out with Xfinity who said there is routine maintenance from 9:41AM to expected available until 3:30PM today, fine, no notice in advance as usual. When I fortunately connect computer via my hotpot from cellphone, the start icon disappeared.

At this moment, I'm kind of depression and almost cannot control my emotion, but my conscious told me it's not the right time, so I tried email LSAC firstly and keep calling them as well as tried to click the reschedule icon to find out available time, finally I tried to transfer to chat with ProctorU live representative through their chat window, and that's the right path. Christian is the live representative helped me to rescheduled another time for me at 3:40PM PDT immediately, and also told me if the Xfinity do not work as expected, the hotpot maybe fine as well. When story arriving at this section, there is only around 1 hour left for the new scheduled exam, I began to buy a couple of different extra data package for my cellphone from T-mobile (if someone knows which service provided by T-mobile is great for hotpot, please tell me, thank you so much), but no one good enough for the needed internet speed, still hoping Xfinity will back in time. BTW, I also called the nearby public library while they already closed at 2PM, and no one answer from the leasing office, then stay at home is the choice.

However, Xfinity did not keep it's promise whose notice changed to "back as soon as possible" when I check again at 3:30PM, and my hotpot was unable to support system running, missed the start again. When I chat with live representative again for this situation, due to I cannot promise when I can have stable internet before 4:00PM PDT today, though he can connect me with proctor directly, but the risk is the disconnection maybe at anytime after the exam start, my better choice is to request an extension from LSAC. This time I face the life. Ironically, Xfinity back at around 4:40PM, good for them.

Hoping this sharing is helpful for anyone needed, and good luck for you all. Still waiting response from LSAC either email or phone, thank you for your time.

Does anyone have a good RC strategy?

My LR is around +22 on average. I just completed my LG strategy attack and I'm now getting +17 versus my previous +13. I'm still working on my accuracy with LG but now am incorporating RC into the mix before I take a practice test sometime this month. I'm taking about 10 minutes per passage + questions, which I know is too long, and I'm missing 10 questions on the whole section generally so clearly my 10 minutes per passage isn't time well spent.

If anyone knows of a method similar to @"Cant Get Right" LG strategy attack but for RC, please share!

Thanks!