Hi 7Sage!

After doing my 5th Practice Test (PT 38) and doing horribly on Logic Games, I was wondering if doing and foolproofing logic games from PT 1-35 is the right course of action to improve my logic games score? Did anyone else do this? I'm sure it took a lot of time. I was planning on taking the August LSAT but my logic games score under timed conditions is horrendous.

Thanks!

Hi everyone! I'm wondering if anyone knows if mechanical (number 2) pencils are allowed for the LSAT flex? I'm taking it Tuesday and want to make sure it goes as smoothly as possible. Also, if there are any other rules/materials that people ran into trouble with so far on the Flex, I would love to know. Thanks in advance!

I have read online that LSAC is permitting it and was just curious if that was true?

I've seen some posts about allowing permissions, changing the swiping features, and disabling the "click to dictionary" function. Is this something that people are doing?

Was curious to see what most peoples comparative passage RC strategy was. I used to read both passages and then go to the questions, but have since been trying the J.Y. method of reading the 1st passage, seeing what you can deduce in the answer, and then reading the second passage and going back to the questions. How many people do the former, and how many people do the latter (the J.Y. strategy)? I think there is a lot of value in the J.Y. strategy but also notice it usually takes more time to do so and ultimately takes away time from the other passages.

Would love to hear other peoples thoughts! Thanks in advance.

I see that on LSAC they say you can have two number two pencils. Does this mean that pen is not allowed? If so does proctor U check your scrap paper after the test? I am really an anti pencil person.

I'm scoring between 176 and 179 lately, with most of my variation in LR (between 0 and -2, a week ago I got a -3). I'm trying to shore up my skills on that section and consistently get -0 /-1

Most people that score that high say it is partly due to luck, but I don't like leaving things to luck!

The good thing is that I'm not making (many) simple errors like missing a word or misreading the argument, and it tends to be the most difficult questions of the test that get me. That leads me to believe that there is still work to be done in improving that score, and that I can be more consistent there. Got any tips for shaving off those last few in LR? What was that process like for you?

Hi everyone,

I wanted to ask for some advice on how you solve inference questions on RC passages. Something I've noticed about J.Y.'s explanations is that he encourages us to "go inside the author's mind" and try to answer from the author's perspective. But I found myself getting inference questions wrong using this approach.

An example would be PT62.1.27.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-62-section-1-passage-4-questions/

Between A and C, I chose A, because I was trying to "go into" Jewett's mind and and see why she might be "unwilling" (the correct answer is C).

I guess my question is two-fold: 1) What is your thought process when you solve inference questions on RC, and 2) How do I stop myself from falling into the trap of over-inferring?

Hi,

so we still have a year to do the LSAT writing right? we don't necessarily and have to do it immediately post we complete the flex? any clarity on this would be greatly appreciated.

Hi all,

First of all, after about a month of studying and practicing for RC, I do see a clear improvement in RC, so thanks 7sage!

Here comes the problem which I could not really find an answer on the 7sage forum: when I do understand what a passage is saying (at least at a minimum level), I can manage to get -0 to -2 on this particular passage no matter what the difficulty level is; however, there are times which I read the passage and would have no clue what the passage is saying, and the result is very likely to be a complete bombing of this passage. Using PTs 73 and 74 as an example, I understood the first passage and the last passage of PT 73, but had no clue what the middle two passages were saying, in which I ended up with -9 just in the middle two passages; while for PT 74, I understood all four passages (again, at least at a minimum level), so I ended up with -2 for the entire section. Beside this specific example, I realize that most passages which I have no clue with are medium-level passages (really not sure why), and I can't find any subject similarities between these passages.

At first I was thinking that the only way to resolve this is to improve my ability to comprehend these passages, but then I realize that JY says he sometimes gets confused with passages and just has to deal with it when answering questions. So are there any good tips on tackling the questions when you are just not sure what the passage is talking about?

Lastly, this post is not saying that I don't want to improve my ability to comprehend. I would still try my best to practice with RC and enhance my reading ability, but as a non-native speaker, I suppose it would be difficult for me to actaully improve my vocublary and comprehension skill in a short period of time.

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Hi!

I was working on LR and had a little problem with the expression "all that is required to do A is B"

So if we were to diagram this in conditional language, would B be sufficient for A or would it be necessary?

Maybe it's biconditional? I'm not sure.

It's just messing with my head and any help would be greatly appreciated! :)

I'm currently drilling weakening question types and they're honestly giving me a really hard time. I feel confident about my task: find something that weakens the support between the premise and conclusion. I have found that really understanding the stimulus before going to the answer choices has helped me a lot. However, I am starting to notice that anticipating a possible way to weaken the stimulus is really hurting me. There have been times when I have been able to correctly anticipate the answer choice. On the other hand, when I run into a question where my anticipation isn't one of the answer choices I end up getting the wrong answer. In said situations, I have noticed that I am so fixed on the answer choice that I anticipated that I end up not liking any of the answer choices. I read through each of them and end up making assumptions that lead me to believe that none of the answer choices would work. I'm not sure how to approach this issue. I would greatly appreciate any advice.

How ought we interpret 'often' in lawgic?

Colloquially, 'often' might be invoked to 'a majority of the times' but it seems to me more analogous to "many" in that it can but does not necessarily imply most.

Instead it seems to me that 'often' implies that there is a some intersection in the same way that 'many' does. Just like 'many', often is subjective to the expected frequency of a particular event and not indicative of a particular objective standard (more likely than not aka 50% + 1).

But of course, my opinion is irrelevant... what have the LSAT gods thus decreed on this?

I noticed that in some of the newer PT's there is a small 'citation' at the top of some (but not all) of the passages.

E.g. Passage 1 of PT 81 - "This passage was adapted from an article published in 2003". Just curious if this is something that is EVER relevant to answering the questions?

I could see LSAT using an excerpt from a "scientific journal" and there being a curve-Breaker question that hinged on the knowledge that this was geared towards non-popular audience, for example. Has anyone seen anything like this?

If not, why are they including this piece of information on some (but not all) of the passages?

Hi everyone,

So I had a discussion with a fellow 7sager about the conditional relationship v ----> /z and how it pertains to grouping/in/out games.

My understanding from the CC is that this relationship would not constitute a bi-conditional, because we can fail the sufficient condition /v, rendering the rule irrelevant. If it were a bi-conditional, /z would have to also be a sufficient condition for v, but this doesn't seem to be the case because as I just mentioned we can have v (v IN) and /v (v OUT). For this to be a bi-conditional would it not have to further be specified that we must have "either v or z, but not both" ?

The other 7sager mentioned that it would be a bi-conditional in a two group, non In/Out game. I was under the impression however that all two group grouping games can be conceived of as In/Out games -we seem to just arbitrarily assign one group as the in group and one group as the out group.

I would really appreciate any help because this has been running through my mind all day.

Hi everyone! I would like to hear some suggestions on books for learning (American) literature knowledge. I'm an ESL and have never learned anything about American literature. I'm fine with RC passages that talk about literature since the pattern is quite obvious, but I feel like even if I understand the argument, there are always a lot of concepts in the passages that I just don't know and they're just some meaningless nouns to me. This makes the passages quite boring. For example, different kinds of devices, poetic forms, sonnet, couplet, quatrain, imagery, folk narrative, different genres of literature. I genuinely want to learn them, so that next time I read a literature passage, they would be more like real things in real life to me. And reading those passages would be more fun. Any advice is welcomed! Thanks!

Hi everyone! I'm taking the July LSAT Flex on July 14 and I was wondering how everyone else is spending these last couple of days before the test. Are you still hitting the books hard? Will you be taking any breaks before the test? What do you have planned for your day-of/day-before routine? I've read some discussions where people take a day or two off before the test, so I just wanted to see what everyone else has planned.

How important is memorizing Groups 1-4 on a scale of 1-10 and why don't we throw in Conclusion & Premise indicators?

#help

Can someone break down the stimulus and translate it for me? I feel like I don't understand what the stimulus is trying to say.

Why does the society has a policy decision to make? why pay $240,000? does that mean the society is paying for the experiment? why is it 120 * $2000? Also why is it only saving one more patient, if the drug goes onto the market wouldn't that benefit more people since its 1 more person per 120? And lastly why is the NA here is there is no other way of telling if S effective as T? Isn't the stimulus already established that trial shows that T would prevent 1 more death out of 120 than S would? So isn't that the effectiveness of the drug?

I'm confusion.

Hi everyone,

I am planning on taking the June LSAT Flex in Asia and had to secure a time slot last week.

Well.. the available time slots all looked ridiculous. I guess this is because they need to follow the US time?

The only available time in Asia time was in the range of something like 5:20am, 5:30am, 5;40am., or, 9:30pm, 9:40 pm.

These are all ridiculous..... I chose a night time slot because I just am not a morning person (although the usual 8:30am start time for regular LSAT should have been reasonable). I do believe LSAT heavily requires you to have intense focus and concentration (and that's why the regular LSAT starts from 8:30...isn't it?)

When I tried to find more information, there wasn't much.

is anyone having a similar problem right now? or, which time slot would you recommend? or should I contact the LSAC for this (don't think they will do much about it...)

I am soooo not looking forward to this.

Can anyone explain why the correct answer here is C instead of E?

My problem with C was that, in order for C to weaken the stimulus, we'd need to assume that the landlords would take out the energy-conserving equipment once they install the energy meters. If the energy-conserving equipment stayed in once they installed the energy meters, then I don't know how any energy would be conserved because the tenants are living within the same energy standard whether they have the meter or not.

Thus, I thought that a better answer would be E. Granted, E does say "some" making it very logically weak, but at least it reveals something that could weaken the argument in the stimulus (which I don't think any of the other answers even come close to doing). If some people conserved energy for non-financial reasons before landlords installed the energy meters, then this would make it more likely that these people would not care about the new energy meters because they never saved energy for financial reasons in the first place.

Thanks!

Best regards

#Help

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-83-section-3-question-16/

Hi I was reviewing PT65.4.5. There is a sentence that says "The plaintiff has applied to the court for an order permitting her to question each defendant without their codefendants or their codefendants' legal counsel being present."

Let's say codefendants stands for A. Codefendants' legal counsel being present stands for B. The sentences says the order permits her to question each defendant without A OR B. I'm wondering whether I should treat the it as without (A or B ), or (without A or without B ). The former should mean [no A and no B], the latter should mean [no A or no B]. How do I decide how to interpret the sentence?

And what about without A AND B?

I came up with an example myself. I can live without video games OR sugar. I would naturally think it means if I don't have video games AND sugar, I am still fine. But if the sentence says "I can live without video games AND sugar", it seems to mean the same thing. So what's the difference?

Additionally, "if I don't have video games and sugar" also seems to mean the same thing as "if I don't have video games or sugar" in English, right? Even if logically the latter has three possibilities -- no video games only, no sugar only, no video games and no sugar, when you say the latter, you actually mean no video games and no sugar, right?

I’m led to this question because of these steps (below) that I took lol. Correct me at any point if there is a flaw in how I went about it!

In 72-2-25, /A and /B strengthens A cause B. We want to strengthen the argument’s assumption by showing that A causes B (buy online cause /use car), so we say /A and /B (/buy online and use car). This makes sense to me intuitively because the CAC is saying that /cause correlated with /effect, which strengthens the relationship between cause and effect.

OK SO, IF /A ← correlated→ /B strengthens A -cause-> B (what we have above - no cause and no effect strengthens cause → effect ), does that mean:

A -cause-> B, which implies A ← correlated→ B, implies /A ← correlated → /B?

And if the answer is yes or no, is there a cleaner theoretical reason why?

*footnote: I shortened direct mail advertising (buy phone or online) from 72-2-25 to just “buy online” to focus purely on the theory part. From 72-2-25: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-72-section-2-question-25/, but this idea has also come up for me as a question in other causation q's.

Has anyone gotten their disclosed report from the June Flex yet? Mine still says that it's not available for me to view

I just finished fool proofing games from 1-35 and I was consistently doing most of them all right within time once I got a hang of it. I took two full timed sections today and scored -4 and -5. I did my blind review (before seeing my results) under timed constraints and managed to get a -0 and -1. Is this a transitioning issue that will go away once I do full sections more frequently or do I have to approach sections differently?