To those who score well in RC:

What does timing look like for you in a section? Not in terms of breakdown per passage, but how much time you have left over and how many questions you left yourself go back to?

My BR for RC is consistently -1 or -0, but under timed conditions it ranges (from -2 to -8). I'm trying to close this gap, since I think my BR indicates that it's a timing issue and not an understanding issue?

Thank you :)

I'm incredibly grateful for the great resources on 7Sage and the supportive community here!

My diagnostic was 161 last July. I've been studying on the off since then while going to school. I finished all the PTs from 35 above and did most LGs from PT1-35 as well.

Good luck to everyone taking the test in the future!

Hi,

I would like to start foolproofing to increase my score on games can someone explain to me how it works?

Hi,

I have trouble seeing why answer choice E here is wrong-- wouldn't the third sentence here be considered a "generalization", since a generalization is practically the same thing as a general principle, and the idea that "parallel lines often appear to converge" seems to be a general principle-- something that could be applied to multiple instances? In addition, if my aforementioned reasoning is correct, isn't this generalization being "used" to argue against people ridding themselves of tendencies by being used as context for the analogy that the stimulus brings up in the last sentence?

Any #help would be very much appreciated!

Best regards

I consistently get 10-12 wrong on every LR section. I have tried improving for a month and it has stayed relatively the same. I'm doing the August LSAT so I don't have much time to do a full on core curriculum redo, now I'm focusing on just damage control. Any advice? Thanks!

I know that

A --m--> B

A --m---> C

leads to an inference of B (--s--) C

So what inference does

A ----> B

A -----> C

lead to? Does it also lead to B (--s--) C?

If someone could help me with this question and show why every AC is wrong and why the right one is right it would be very helpful.

PT 2 S2 Question 11

"If the forest continues to disappear at its present pace, the koala will approach extinction," said the biologist.

"So all that is needed to save the koala is to stop deforestation," said the politician."

Which of the following statements is consistent with the biologist's claim but not with the politician's claim ?

A. Deforestation continues and the koala becomes extinct

B. Deforestation is stopped and the Koala goes Extinct

C. Reforestation begins and the koala survives

D. Deforestation is slowed and the Koala Survives

E. Deforestation is slowed and the koala approaches extinction

Hi everyone, thanks in advance for the advice :)

Brief background:

-Diagnostic (April) - 159; -14 LG

-PT 2 weeks ago - 163; -8 LG

-PT yesterday - 168; -8 LG

I have done the Powerscore Bibles and 7sage core curriculum and foolproofed about 80 of games PT1-35 so far. I spend 80% of my time on LG, as it is clearly my weakness. I usually miss a couple due to accuracy and then run out of time on the rest.

I'm planning to continue foolproofing 1-35 and take PTs 49-89 (every other) before the October exam. It also seems like a good idea to start taking full, timed LG sections, so I'll do that with 36-49 starting soon.

Other than continuing the foolproofing and taking LG sections, does anyone have advice on how to improve my LG score before the exam? Do I need to change my approach? I am thrilled at my improvement between the last two PTs, but I'm a little disappointed that I didn't improve in LG, since that is what I was actually studying 80% of the time; it was even as easier LG section.

Thanks to those who read this and good luck on your studies!

Hey there! If you're from Ontario and want to BR LR Sections from PT's 59+ comment below. I'm planning on drilling 2 sections each on Saturday and Sunday from this pool throughout August in preparation for the October LSAT, and would love to have a few study partners.

Update: Hi all, I unfortunately will not be able to meet for this group anymore, but feel free to contact any of those who commented and arrange meetings.

I'm 3 weeks from taking the July Flex and am struggling terribly with RC. On a good day I will get a -4 and on a bad day I will get a -12. It's terrible. Does anyone have suggestions for how to best to study these next three weeks? I have gone through the 7Sage reading problems once, and was going to go through them again, but my issue is that once I hear the explanations, I remember the answers.

Thank you JY and the entire 7Sage team. I never had the patience to do a full BR, but everything went right for me on test day and I am thrilled to not be taking the August exam. My biggest takeaway is that, above all, the LSAT is a test of effort and focus. Every tool for success on this test is in the CC. Be persistent. Work on your internal dialogue (this is a big one). And remember you have the ability to beat your PT average on any given day. Also, try not to stress after the test. If you're like me, the last five minutes of any given section might be a blur even right after the fact. Rest knowing that, at least in my case, it can be a happy blur.

So, I have recently started fool proofing PTs 1-35, and it has been about 3-4 weeks now. I am definitely seeing small improvements, but for some reason I had my hopes up to finish the fool proofing process before summer ends, leaving me to start doing PT throughout the school year. Oddly enough, I've figured out that doing 4 games a day and fool proofing them all takes an insanely long amount of time. I am curious on if I didn't fool proof every single game, just the majority of them. My target score is 160 and I'm wondering if I can afford to skip some games during the fool proofing process. As of right now, I am not even close to halfway done with all of the games, and considering doing most but not all of the games in order to get into full PTs.

So along with that, I was wondering how many games a day you all recommend in order to complete fool proofing in a reasonable amount of time. I have been trying to consistently hit 4 games a day, but of course there are days where I do less. It just concerns me with taking so long, because I don't want to forget all of the information I learned in the CC on LR. Any advice is appreciated!

This has tripped me up on one or two questions in the past because I think I'm carrying my own sense of what a generalization is. How would you say that LSAT defines this term?

Hi all!

I feel like I'm stuck in a rut with my studying. I've been FP LG which has been really helpful, but with LR I find myself scoring worse than I did when I first started studying.

What are some specific actions/ methods you used in seeing increases in LR? How did you realize what wasn't working and what did you do to get past it? How does LR studying look for you? Do you take PTs, drill, BR?

I hope to get some inspiration and guidance on how to see consistent improvements. Thanks in advance!

For employee working there from 1-4 year they have 3 weeks paid leave.

Half of 3 is 1.5 which is less than 2. How is (A) correct?

Reading Comp is my worst section by far because I can get lost in the complexity or density of the reading and lose too much time or I can struggle in other ways. What advice does anyone have for doing well on reading? Any secrets I need to focus on to improve?

I am having an incredibly hard time trying to digram the logic.

I diagramed the third sentence as follows:

/Profit Making ----> subsidy support (outside control)

The last sentence was the hardest for me to diagram. "No one will subsidize honest journalism"

No= G4=negate, necessary

Two ideas:

willing to subsidize??

honest journalism

honest journalism ----> /willing to subsidize

I think part of my confusion with this last sentence is trying to figure out what the two distinct ideas are.

I am also having a hard time trying to figure out how the third sentence and fourth sentence are linked together. I thought the correct answer was A.

Thanks in advance!

Planning on taking the August Flex. Really want to improve on LG. How did you guys finish the LG Curriculum section? Did you foolproof each game 10 times in a day? If so how long was it since you seen improvements?

Please help!! I feel like I don't have structure when it comes to finishing the lessons for LG and practicing before August test date.

Has anyone noticed the "Some...." as a cookie-cutter trap answer choice for tougher strengthening/weakening questions?

(Disclaimer - I don't think this would work all of the time; and would actually love to look at counterexamples if anyone has any). But I think it might merit some additional attention/scrutiny if you are going to select an AC to strengthen or weaken an argument and all you have in your pocket is a some statement - kind of like going into battle with a BB Gun.

I think the reason for this is that some statements are inherently weak (or NOT powerful, in Loophole terminology). Some could be 1 out of 100 or 4 out of 2 trillion and unless the conclusion is conditional claiming that all As are Bs then its probably won't do much to claim that some As are /Bs. I could see this being particularly the case for causal arguments when there are potentially multiple and countervailing factors at play (as there almost always are).

For example, prolonged exposure to sun without sunscreen is known to cause skin cancer. If we wanted to weaken this argument for example, "some people who go to the beach everyday and never wear sunscreen will NEVER develop skin cancer". Well of course! There are always going to be a couple outliers but that doesn't wreck the fact that one thing (prolonged exposure to the sun without sunscreen) causally contributes to another thing (skin cancer).

I also think that the same reason that some statements make them incorrect (they are indefinite, vague and inherently weak) also make them appealing. After all, some could mean 99.99% but that requires the additional (and unwarranted) assumption.

Can anyone else validate this reasoning or rip it apart with an accompanying explanation? :)

Hi everyone, I hope your long weekend is going as good as mine with all this studying going on (simply fantastic). -_-

Just a bit of background, I've completed the Powerscore Bibles and am now going through the 7Sage core curriculum. When going through Sufficient and Necessary conditions, I had a quick question: how would you "draw" these two sentences?

No dog is funny (https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/basic-translation-group-4-flashcards/) - Group 4

There is no reward without hard work. (https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/basic-translation-group-3-flashcards/) - Group 3

Based on the CC lesson, "No" is the identifier for the first sentence, meaning we take either of the ideas (dog or funny), negate it and make it a necessary condition.

Based on the CC lesson for the second sentence, "Without" is the identifier for the second sentence, meaning we take one of the ideas "no reward" or "hard work", negate it and make it a sufficient condition.

My question is, why is the idea in the second sentence "no reward" but the idea in the first sentence just "dog"? Why doesn't the "no" negate the dog as well, just like it negates the reward, making it "no reward"?

Sorry if I confused you guys. :( Thanks so much!

Any tips for the last month to help improve LR section? I seem to be making the same mistakes on timed PT and I think it is because of time pressure and not the difficulty of question because I have a solid understanding of all question types. If anyone has any advise to do in the next month to get more comfortable by test day that would be hugeeee help.

Hi 7sagers! I'm currently averaging -1~-2 in LR. Recently I've been reviewing my old PTs. I think it would be great if I have someone asking me questions so that I can review my fundamentals. And also I hope this can help someone who cannot afford a tutor. I plan to do this tutoring once or twice a week until August LSAT. Shoot me a message if you're interested! Please briefly tell me your score range in LR, your weakness, PTs you've done, your availability, how long you've studied for the test ,and whether you have finished CC or not. I live in GMT+8 (ET+12hr), but we can definitely make this work. Thanks!

I was stuck between answer choices C and E, and ultimately with C.

Conclusion: Mayor's claim that the turnaround time for patients in "top priroty emergencies" has gone down this year, is a misrepresentation.

P1: Definition of "top prirotiy emergencies" is different this year than it was the year before.

Why is E the better answer here? C is acknowledging that the mayor's definition of "top-priority emergency" is erroneous. I feel like E is simply restating the premise that tells us that emergencies used to include gunshot wounds and electrocutions. Did I misinterpret this?

Would greatly appreciate any insight.

I diagrammed the stimulus as follows:

Premise 1: universities moral and intellectual----> /best selling books are frivolous

Premise 2: best selling books are frivolous

Conclusion: /universities moral and intellectual

With this diagram I was able to quickly eliminate answer choices A and B. However, I really struggled to eliminate C, D, and E. Nonetheless, I struggled with finding a reason to eliminate C and D.

C.) The stimulus tells us that at university bookstores the only publication that sells better than Gossip Review is TV Today. I thought that part of the stimulus allowed us to conclude that most people are purchasing TV Today or Gossip Review.

D.) The stimulus tells us that many people who attend this country's universities are failing their moral and intellectual responsibilities. I found this answer choice to be as equally attractive as E. I get that this answer choice is focused on the people who attend the university and the stimulus is placing a focus on the universities as a whole, but I think it's a logical assumption to say that the students are failing since they are a part of the university as a whole. If the university as a whole fails then so do all the other groups of people who make up the university.

Since I was able to use conditional logic for this question, should I just look for the conclusion that best matches and move on?

I would greatly appreciate someone's input in trying to figure out why C and D are wrong.

Thanks in advance!

I am really struggling with this question and I honestly think it's because I may have misunderstood the stimulus. My understanding is that milk, the final product that we see at the store, requires the use of a bottle and raw milk. The bottler is the person who purchases raw milk from farmers and uses it to create the jug of milk that we see at the grocery store. The stimulus proceeds to tell us that complaints about the bottlers pulling up the prices tend to happen when the milk bottler has had to purchase raw milk from farmers, at a higher price than usual. The author of the stimulus uses this to show that it's not the milk bottler's fault that the price of milk at the grocery store has gone up, but rather the blame should be on the farmer. If the farmer hadn't pulled up the price of raw milk then the bottler would not have had to pull up the price of their final product (i.e. the milk jug at the store).

The word "markup" was something I interpreted to mean revenue, not sure if that's actually what was meant by that. From that I drew out:

Scenario 1: Price of raw milk goes up

Price of milk at grocery store:

Goes up

Markup:

small

Scenario 2: Price of raw milk falls

Price of milk at grocery store:

Goes down

Markup:

greatest

I ended up choosing answer choice D, but it was not the accredited answer. I would greatly appreciate if someone could read through my interpretation of the stimulus and help me figure out where I went wrong.

Thanks in advance!