I am having hard time to see the relevance of the answer E.

And I have no idea why B is wrong. :(

Can anyone explain me why E is right and B is wrong?

Thanks!

So I’m having some difficulty eliminating Answer choice A and wondering why my interpretation of it is incorrect.

A says: “The truth of a given description is independent of its emotional vividness.”

I interpreted this to mean, whether a description is true or false is independent of emotional vividness. I remember from both passages that the respective authors thought that telling lies increased emotional vividness, so I thought A was correct by reasoning that if something is untrue then emotional vividness increases. Shakespeare in the first passage and subjectivity in autobiography in the second illustrated this. So I reasoned that truthfulness, as interpreted as being true or false is not independent of emotional vividness, because at least of aspect of truthfulness, being false—increases emotional vividness.

Obviously, this was an incorrect interpretation. Just wondering how I could know that from reading the answer choice, and how I could ascertain the correct one.

Thanks!

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-88-section-3-passage-2-questions/

What is the difference between LR questions in the 70's and 80's compared to earlier PTs?

For example, is it that recent LR questions hinge on really subtle interpretations of words, like conflating "method" and "reason" and these two words are spaced far apart in the paragraph? Is it picking up on really subtle flaws? Did the old tests just test your basic understanding of logic and not really test your ability to hunt for subtlety?

I ask because I did really well in PT 60, then did 5x worse in a pt from the 80s. This is pretty consistent too for LR. Why?

Thanks to 7SAGE for helping me improve with the games. Took the Feb 2020 LSAT and forgot to post this. GPA is around a 3.78 at the moment (1 semester left). Thoughts on what schools I'm in range for? Thanks!

Hi,

For some reason, I just found this question really difficult. I was really kind of stuck between B and E, and I wasn't sure about either of them because it is hard to find direct textual evidence that I can connect back to what the question is asking for. For instance, B looked right because of lines 35-36. E looked sort of right due to lines 57-58. However, what made it really hard for me to decide the answer choice was lines 32-35-- if finding common grounds to communicate is "impossible" then how is it "resolvable" in the first place? This sentence made A look sort of right, and made me doubt my previous thinking...

Can anyone give an explanation for this question?

Any #help would be appreciated!

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-31-section-4-passage-4-questions/

I'm trying to make sure I keep certain LR topics fresh and also work on ones I struggle with most. I am completing the CC question sets as I move along through the sections.

What can I use to "drill" certain questions after I complete the CC question sets?

What is the best way to study for LR? Currently, while I BR, I type out the conclusion, premise, and why each AC except one is wrong. Any tips? What worked well for you?

How do you review LR questions that you got wrong?

Hey guys quick question about going through logic games. For those that fullproofed, did you do every game from 1-35, and did you do all of that before you started taking timed pt's or after a few pt's where you were struggling on the games? Just started the logic game curriculum and I am trying to plan out my studying and see if anyone had recommendations about how to go about it. Thanks in advance for your help!

Any tips? Pleaaaaaase

On a recent PT I put so much energy and effort into the first 3 passages so maybe that's why- but I totally died by the 4th passage and just guessed everything. I was also running out of time.. how do I get faster and better? And stay alert through all of them.

Hi,

So Im averaging -8 on the LR section. There's a pattern to my incorrect answers though. They are all sufficient assumptions, principle, or parallel reasoning questions. They all require me to map out the argument and understand whats missing or to mirror the same map to something else.

The problem is that I don't understand how to map out reasoning. I can do simple ones but on my own, all my diagrams are confusing. HELP!

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

Hi guys,

Here is the gist: I have a scientific background and tend to do well on science passages. I suck at art and humanities passages.

It seems like I can go -0 pretty easily on 1 and 2 star passages, -1 on 3 star passages, and anything between -2 to -4 on 4 and 5 star passages.

Obviously I have difficulty with the hard and hardest passages. I find that I read the stimulus in about 3:30 minutes and usually that is enough to understand 1 to 3 star passages really well to get most of the questions right. Spend the same amount of time on 4 and 5 star passages though, and I get a lot of questions wrong timed. I know that it is because a) I spin my wheels on difficult questions and b) I did not fully understand the passage.

I know what I have to do in order to address a), but for b) it seems to be a case of... I need to do a drill set/intensive on hard reading comp passages. I went ahead and printed all the 4 to 5 star passages from PT 7 to 35. Going to do them timed and blind review. And then put them away/archive them and redo them after some time has passed. What do you think?

Hi guys,

For RC, I'm just wondering whether any 170+ scorers employ a skipping strategy commonly seen in LR, where you do 10 questions in 10 minutes and15 questions in 15 minutes to have 10 minutes left over to do a second pass on 3-5 questions that were skipped on purpose?

I find that this technique really helps me prioritize my time in LR sections and think it may also benefit me in RC. I realize that because of the reading time can vary for each passage on RC, that this technique may have to be a bit different than LR. But I do notice that when I get to the last passage with ~ 10 minutes left, I tend to freak out a bit and it becomes difficult to finish on time.

Thanks!

When I first started logic games, making inferences looked like some sort of voo doo that I would never quite get. I brute forced games that should have been split, I tried to split games that had way too many possibilities and ran out of time because I was trying to make 6 game boards. I have often forgotten to circle the floater or even think about how it can help answer questions or make inferences. If this sounds like you, I am writing this post primarily for you.

Understanding the power of the floater is helpful for multiple situations:

You are learning logic games and having trouble seeing inferences

You didn’t split the game or the game is open ended

You are looking at a question and don’t see any obvious inferences, so you trying to brute force the answer choices. Understanding the power of the floater will help you be smarter about which answer choices to test.

Here is how the floater (s) can help you:

You have a “ Could be True” question

Sequencing Example: Who could be the 4th person in line? Because your floater should be able to go anywhere, if you see the floater as one of your answer choices, try placing the floater in that 4th position first in a mini diagram and see if it works.

In and Out Game: If you have a true floater, it should be able to go into either the In or Out group. So, if you have a question asking you which variable can go into the In Group and you see your floater showing up as an answer choice, this should be the first answer choice you try.

Grouping: Your floater should be able to go into any group so if you have a question asking you which variable could go into Group C, try your floater first.

You have Must be true question:

Sequencing Example: If you see your floater listed in the answer choices, Eliminate, you know that your floater can go in more positions than just 4th position for example, because there is no rules attached to it.

In and Out Game:

If you have a true floater it should be able to go into either of the groups. If you see your floater in the answer choices, don’t check it.

Grouping Game:

Your floater doesn’t have to be in any specific group, eliminate any answer choice regarding this.

You have a Must be False Question:

Sequencing Example: Who can’t be the 4th person in line?

If you see the floater in one of the answer choices, this should be the last answer choice you try. Remember, your floater should be able to go anywhere so it is highly unlikely the answer to the question, unless it has been eliminated by another rule such a large block or sequencing chain.

In and Out Game:

If you have a floater it should be able to go into either group so if the question is asking who can’t go into the In group, you should skip checking any answer choices involving your floater.

Grouping:

Your floater should be able to go into any group so don’t check any answer choices involving your floater for a question stem that asks you something like who can’t go into Group C?

You have a hypothetical question where your floater has been placed

Sequencing example: If H is 4th, what must be true?

Since H was your floater and has now been placed, do you have any large blocks or variables that can’t go together? Check to see if placing your floater has now limited the block (s) or variables that need to be seperated.

In and Out Game:

You have a limited number of variables so when something has been placed it limits the possibility of other variables. This is particularly true in In and Out Games with limited distribution possibilities. For example, if you have a game where you can have a max of three variable in the In Group, you already had a variable in the In Group and now you have placed your floater into the In Group, you know that your block can’t go into the In Group because you only have one spot left.

As a second example, you have placed your floater into the Out Group which is now full, you now know that all of other variables which haven’t been placed yet are now in the Out Group.

Grouping Game:

If the groups are open ended placing your variable may not help you much but if you have a game with limited distribution and restrictive rules, than the floater may just be the key to the inference the question wants you to make.

For example: You have 3 groups A, B, C Each Group can have a maximum of two variables. You have just placed your floater into Group A, and Group A is now full because another variable had already been placed into it based on another rule. You know that you need to seperate R and S. R has been placed into Group B. This pushes out the inference that S must be placed into Group 3.

You have a hypothetical question involving a large block or variables that need to be seperated

Sequencing example: A question like this may severely limit the possibilities of your floater. This is particularly true when considered in conjunction with other rules of the game like blocks, variables that can’t go together or sequences. For a question like this, create a mini diagram and place your large block or variables. Check out how this impacts other variables in the game. Chances are that your floater is now restricted. While, this won’t always turn out to be the answer choice itself, noticing this can help you find the inference the question is asking you about.

In and Out Game:

If there is a limited number of positions, this makes it harder to separate variables that can’t go together. When you seperate variables that can’t go together or place variables that have to go together, your possibilities to distribute the remaining variables may become severely more limited.

Grouping Game:

If you have placed variables that need to go together or separated variables that can’t go together, your floater likely has more limited distribution possibilities, especially if your groups have limited distribution possibilities.

You have more than one floater:

Your floaters are interchangeable. If C and T are your floaters these are essentially the same answer choice.

If you have any question that you see both your floaters show up as answer choices, you can eliminate both answer choices. There is only one right answer.

The videos for In/Out Grouping Question 1 Game Setup and Questions are missing

I'd like to drill the inference valid argument relationships, specifically the most/some's, because the advanced drill really had me struggling to draw inferences quickly. I've made flashcards but even that isn't enough. Any resources or drills would be appreciated!

If I am really struggling with the most advanced weakening questions should I stay on the lesson until I am able to perform better or should I move on to the next lesson in the schedule and come back to weakening questions later.

Thanks

Hey 7 Sage community,

I have been trying to improve my timing strategies in LR overall but one thing I noticed I've been doing during timed section runs is skipping the sufficient assumption questions that show up deep in the section that often incorporate a few conditional statements/ formal logic. Usually during BR, I get them correct but I noticed during timed pressure my nerves kick in when I realize I'll have to diagram it all and I have other questions to do. (Same usually applies for certain par/par-flaw)

I've been working on getting more comfortable with cookie cutter argument structures and diagramming but I was wondering what else I could do to build more confidence.

I was also curious what practical steps I could take to get to the level of not having to diagram at all.

Do top scorers just see it all in their heads? It gets really hard for me to keep track of everything in terms of comprehension until I can see the structure laid out in lawgic.

I can't seem to figure out a way to keep these questions under 2 minutes and its been frustrating. I'd love to turn these into a strength as I like how they can be reliable points.

I would appreciate any insight.

Thank you!!

Hi,

When I was looking at the answer choices of this question, I was stuck between B, C, and E. Can anyone help explain why B is right and why C and E are wrong?

Any #help would be appreciated!

Thanks!

Hi,

I understand why B here is right, but I have trouble understanding why D is completely wrong. After all, couldn't "some" footprints include the footprints that Dr. Tyson is looking at, and couldn't missing a feature of the original footprint lead to a huge change in how the footprint is interpreted?

Any #help would be appreciated!

Thanks!

Hi,

this was a weird LR question that I thought somebody might have some insight on. I used Process of Elimination to find that E was the only possible right answer, but I was not completely sure how E was the right answer when it stated that the Student's criteria was "inconsistent" with "the principle the historian advanced".

For something to be inconsistent with something else, they must contradict each other. The principle the Historian brings up is that "Alexander the Great should not be judged by appeal to current notions of justice". However, the student only stated that, in order to tell if Alexander the Great raised contemporary standards, one would need to "invoke standards other than those of his own culture". This criteria does not HAVE to contradict the principle the Historian brings up because "standards other than those of his own culture" might or might not include "current notions of justice".

Can anybody explain how E is right here?

Any #help would be appreciated!

Sometimes scoring 5/5 without BR

Sometimes scoring 3/5 with BR or

5/5 with BR

My track record for MSS are all over the place and I can't find the underlying theme or thread for why I can't be consistent in my scores.

I found that with MP questions I was able to figure it out and find a strategy that worked but are there any tips on this?

I think I'm just not understanding MSS..

(even though I've learned that the stimulus holds the premise and the answer choice holds the conclusion)

I'm concerned - any thoughts anyone ? :$

Hi,

I understand why the answer here is B (because this shows that it is possible that the person knew Drew well and sent Drew roses to piss him off), but I can not quite pinpoint why A is wrong. Most traditional explanations for why A is wrong include the line of reasoning that it is perfectly possible that "most" people may not include the person that sent roses to Drew; but how is this line of reasoning consistent with B being correct? After all, it is also perfectly possible that "some" of the people who send flowers for reasons other to please may not be the person who sent the roses to Drew.

Thus, I feel that there should be a better explanation for why A is wrong, but I have trouble pinpointing it in my head.

Any #help would be appreciated!

Thanks!

Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-31-section-2-question-19/

Hi guys,

I feel like I have a good grasp of how to improve in the LG and LR sections, but not necessarily the RC section. I'm a scientist so the science passages are quite easy for me. I know that I need to improve on art and law passages.

What I have been doing:

So far, I have been printing off art and law RC sections, doing them individually timed (8.5 min) and BR'ing them right away from PT 36 - 41. I've been working on developing my skipping strategy more, where on my first pass I note any questions to return to on my second pass. I tend to have a mix of questions to return to, some are the ones that I nailed down to 2 ACs and need to choose the one, but some are the ones that I read all ACs and just had no clue, and some are the ones that I needed to refer back to the passage and would take a bit of time to do so. At the same time, I try to identify any questions to be my "loser" and try to focus the remainder of my time on questions that I can get right. I just started developing this more consciously on both LR and RC.

My reading time for the passage is generally between 2.5 - 3.5 minutes. I tend to get -1 or -2 wrong per passage, which would be -4 to -8 in the RC section. Not good enough for what I want... I seem to struggle a bit with inference and most strongly supported type questions.

How do you think I should structure my studying to go forward? I am not completely certain that just doing more passages with thorough blind review will help improve my score. My goal is to try and get consistently -4 per RC section or better.

Hi,

Does anyone know what LSAT's RC sections mean by the word "issue" (ie PT30.S3.Q25 mentions "issues surrounding a study are discussed")? Asking because "issue" could have 2 meanings-- topic or a point of disagreement, both of which I feel could be relevant in RC.

#help

Thanks!

Hi,

When I was looking at the answer choices for this question, I noticed that answer choice B states something about "actual legal dilemmas". As a result, I rejected answer choice B because, while I noticed the mention of legal dilemmas in general throughout the passage, I did not see any mention of a single "actual" legal dilemma example. However, when looking at other answer explanations, no one seems to mention this as a reason for rejecting answer choice B. Is my perception of what "_actual_legal dilemma" means correct here or am I just fantasizing? I understand why E is right and why A,C,D are wrong. #help

Thanks!

Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-30-section-3-passage-3-questions/