Y'all. WTF was this test. LG destroyed me. I'm so upset.

I already have 2 cancels on record - 1 from 2017 when I had a panic attack during (lol) and the other from the July test because I saw my score and didn't like it and wanted the free October retake. I don't actually have an official score on record but I feel like there is a chance that today's score might be lower than what I cancelled in July.

Today's test was unexpected. I feel like if I cancelled today, 3 cancellations would look really bad-- but does it look worse than a terrible score because LG totally f*cked you? lololol

Thanks for the help!!

KJS

Hi everyone,

I am wondering if anyone knows when the Fall 2020 test dates will be posted?

Hey friends, quick clarification question for you #help.

In 17.01.G4, the rule "J is on the same team as K," translates as a forever together biconditional, where J ↔ K. Similarly, the second rule, "K is not on the same team as N," translates as a forever apart biconditional, K ↔ /N. In his explanation (see link below), it seemed like J.Y. was implying that this was because there were only two groups for the pieces to be sorted into.

Does this mean that a similar rule would not translate as a biconditional if there were multiple groups? If so, someone please explain this to me, because I don't understand why it couldn't be a biconditional in both game types.

17.01.G4 video explanation: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-1-game-4/

On the LR questions that are straight lawgic, a lot of times I have to write it out and translate it to get it right. For example I translate it to A ----> B etc. I score in the high 160s so I am wondering is this normal or is this a weakness of mine? And suggestions on improving?

After reviewing the correct answer, (B), it seems that we are supposed to assume that it was medical staff who reported that their patients could predict their own medical outcomes. I feel like this is a huge leap, though, as I read the stem to imply that patients were self-reporting their predictions. Even if I didn't assume this, it seems like a similarly big assumption that medical staff are the "reporters" in this instance. Am I missing something?

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

Admin note:https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-76-section-2-question-18/

This is a MBF question. Its specific type is a conditional MBF. I know going into this question, the LSAT writers are going to do a MBF answer choice by messing up on the necessary sufficient conditionality. Keeping that in mind I wanted to approach the question. My approach for this question would be "hunting" for the ACs because in line 2 you can see "only if" - which hints at a condtionality MBF question type & because it belongs to group 2.

However, the first sentence threw me off with the wording "depends" - which hints at necessary conditional. But then I tried to diagram that and I messed up with that. But in JY's explanation - he brushed that sentence off b/c he thought it was a context sentence. How do you make that jump or assessment when a certain sentence has "light" conditionality language (meaning it is not explicit in its use with if, only if, must, etc.) but should be considered a context or a non-conditional statement.

Any help would be awesome.... :)

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-48-section-4-question-18/

Okay so for this question I got it right but would have taken way less time if I understood something. I've been doing logic for a while but this one got me a little tripped.

If

A--> (C or D)

we can contra to /C--> (/A or D)??

I thought we could have to do it as such

A-->/C-->D

/A or /C-->D

/C or /A-->D

C-->/A --> D

C--> (A or D).

Where am I going wrong?

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-71-section-3-question-24/

Im super confused as to why I score 1-3 on more recent LRs from PrepTests (60ish+) as compared to earlier ones (25ish and below). I also find the LR questions from earlier LSATS much harder than the later ones. Can someone tell me if this is normal?

If some are not X, does this category mean 0-99%? The logical opposite of "all" is "not all" which clearly means 0-99%, but does this mean the same thing logically as "some are not?" Thanks!!!

It's been a long time coming but for the first time going into a take, my PT average is a couple points above my target. I can't even begin to describe what a difference this makes (mentally). Good luck on Saturday everyone, and try to take it easy in the days leading up to the test!

m

Hey Team,

I'm taking September and have noticed that my RC scores have not improved nearly as much as my LG and LR's have. I think this may have to do with switching to the digital format. I was studying on paper in May, then switched to a tablet in July. I find the format awkward to navigate and cumbersome to look back in the text. Of course annotation is limited now as well. Does anyone have any tips on making notes/highlighting in digital RC, or more broadly digital RC advice?

Thanks!

I'm taking the September test but I don't feel 100% ready. I took summer classes to graduate early, so I didn't study as much as I would have liked for the LSAT during the summer. If I retake it would be the November test. I was wondering if November is considered late, especially if I'm aiming to get scholarships? I currently have a 3.85 GPA, and a strong letter of recommendation from one of my professors who is an attorney. I also have two other good LORs from business professors and my personal statement and diversity statement should be good as well. I'm not necessarily aiming for t-14s I will apply to a few, but I'm more so focusing on getting to a good school with a decent scholarship.

Here's my trick for recognizing the right AC in Str / Wkn questions and a helpful method in BR too. Take an argument (P + C) then say BUT... then read the AC. For example,

Weakener: "Bob is a dancer. He must be good at dancing. BUT ___ (a survey says Bob is the worst dancer in history)." The AC fits pretty well and reads more easily.

The same works for a strengthener, just add AND... "JY is pretty smart thus he must be totally awesome :D AND ___... he won the Nobel Peace Prize." See? Adding But or And makes the AC read more smoothly.

This is really helpful for me in Str / Wkn questions, I just say "ok this was P, this is C, And / But...AC" and often the right AC is much easier to see.

In BR this technique helps me turn wrong ACs into right ones and vice versa, and after BRing a question like this I feel much more confident in my understanding of the ACs and the question as a whole.

Hello everyone,

I was wondering with the addition of another LSAT, is taking the January LSAT for the same cycle late?

I am signed up for the November LSAT but I was considering also signing up for January just in case. Would it be worth my time and money to do so?

Currently my BR is at my goal score but my timed score is below it.

Thank you!

Hi folks, I am taking the LSAT in Malaysia in January. How do I know whether it will be digital or not?

I have been PT'ing and noticed I have improved my LG and RC sections but have not made any improvement in the LR sections. I am getting on average -9 to -13 wrong on the LR sections. LG I am averaging -2 to -5, while RC -3 to -5. Best sections RC and LG. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

B. The initial space of our universe resembles cold, empty space

C. A hot and dense state is a state of low entropy

Correct answer is C. I chose B. After watching JY's explanation I still have unanswered questions about this problem.

The passage implies that a small, hot, dense universe has low entropy. I see that. But the answer removes two key terms, small and universe. Entropy increases with temperature and decreases with density, so after removing two key terms, small and universe, we are left with one factor that increases entropy and one factor that decreases entropy. Are we to assume that removing these two key terms that the state of entropy does not change? I feel like we are not provided with enough information on entropy to make that assumption. I believe it to be more reasonable to assume that the author has a proper understanding of entropy (is this too much of an assumption?). There could easily be a state that is both hot and dense with a very random distribution of gas molecules that would not necessarily be a state of low entropy.

I also feel like the reason JY dismisses Answer Choice B isn't correct. The initial state of our universe being cold, empty space (a natural state) is C&C’s addition to other physicists's Multiverse Theory. We've already agreed (Q20) that C&C theorize that our universe is a result of an energy fluctuation in a high entropy universe, and C&C's reasoning that the state of our universe would have been a cold, empty state that was not low entropy (and, if I understand entropy correctly, not necessarily a state of high entropy like JY claims, just a natural state.)

It seems to make more sense to me for the author (a sympathetic reporter) to agree with the theory of C&C than to make a slightly misguided statement about the laws of thermodynamics.

I know the LSAT is never wrong, so if someone could please explain to me what I am missing, it would be much appreciated.

Thanks.

Edit: clarified a couple points and spelling.

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q#(P#) - [brief description of stimulus]"

Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-86-section-3-passage-4-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-86-section-3-passage-4-questions/

I’m unsure if I should cancel the September test. I really want to score in the low 160s. I’m scoring in the low 160s on my PT but I was doing that before the July test and got a 157. I was really hoping to be scoring around 165 on my PTs so I can feel comfortable on the test about getting a low 160 score. (My BR is in the high 160s.) I’ve practiced LR all summer and feel so much better about it but the last 2 PT I took I bombed one LR on both.

I can’t take October because it’s sold out. I wanted to apply early to schools because last year I applied after Jan. I’m at a loss on what to do! Feeling discouraged..

While I am in the progress of attempting all the PrepTests and i'm nearing completion, I swear that I have seen the same questions in other tests or similar reiterations of such. Am I delusional at this point, or is there some type of validity in what I'm seeing?

Can anyone explain to me what CLIR is and how I can apply the technique on my own when I drill/review LR?

I've been looking for the Loophole, but it's still not available to buy/ship to my area.

I would highly appreciate any tips!

🍪🍪🍪

I noticed a repeating pattern of argument structure that some may find useful. I call the form "Cost Benefit”, below I will discuss how it functions and why it matters.

The argument structure offers one benefit as a premise and concludes from this that the benefit is compelling to make a statement about the original “thing” being good overall.

Let me give an example:

The Dirt Devil vacuum cleaner has the most efficient suction system out of any vacuum on the market, moreover, the Dirt Devil is the most cost effective option on the market. Therefore if you are in the market for a vacuum, look no further than the Dirt Devil.

Here our premise holds 2 benefits (most efficient suction system, most cost effective) out to conclude that the Dirt Devil is the best to buy.

The assumption here and with every “Cost Benefit” argument is that there is not a cost being overlooked that outweighs these benefits.

So,

To Weaken such an argument: Introduce a cost that may outweigh the benefit

To Strengthen: Block out the possibility of potential costs, introduce another benefit, or emphasize the importance/relevance of the benefit.

Additionally, this argument structure is often used for Necessary Assumption questions. The NA simply stating something to the effect of: “The benefit is not outweighed by certain costs” or “The benefit is not unimportant to making a judgement about the original thing”.

The “Cost Benefit” argument also has another cookie cutter form. It uses a cost as a premise and then concludes that something is not good or we should not do something. This argument structure works the same way as the above one, except the assumption is that there is not an overriding benefit.

Cookie cutter arguments matter because patterns of reasoning are finite and LSAC re uses many of the same forms, just dressed up with confusing subject matter. For example to make a “Cost Benefit” argument more difficult, they may make the subject matter abstract or create an argument that makes perfect sense intuitively.

Boiling questions down to empirical structure is like distilling their blue prints and from there you can think about how new questions may spawn from them. Hopefully this is helpful, if so I will make some similar posts in the future!

Hey everyone,

So, I have been in my PT phase for a couple months now, and realize that LG is my worst section. It's weird to realize that, given it is generally the easiest section to improve on. I vary widely in my performance (sometimes missing 2 or 3, sometimes up to 10 or 11). If I could be consistently scoring -2 or 3, my scores would be meeting what I am looking to get on the real test. I've tried a lot up to this point (buying every released PT and fool proofing games by PT, going through all of the core curriculum, revisiting games that gave me trouble, etc.). Does anyone have any specific study schedules they took on to improve their LG section? Should I stop PTing and focus on games exclusively for a couple weeks? I don't want to lose "proficiency" in the other sections... I know it's silly to be complaining about the most learnable section of the test, but if anyone has been where I am and has gotten their LG misses to be more consistent, I would greatly appreciate advice.

Can someone explain PTC, S2 Q22?

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [first set of words]"

Logged onto LSAC today and was able to switch my Oct. test center from God-forsaken Newark to a hotel near Penn Station. Head's up - limited availability.