When I took the July test, I received a digital exam. I don't own a tablet, so prior to the exam I had practiced using the digital interface provided by LSAC but on a laptop (yes, this was before I had 7Sage - that was my first mistake!)

I guess I didn't think about the fact that highlighting / underlining is much easier when you can actually click or use a touch pad on a laptop than when you're using an unfamiliar tablet on the exam. Consequently, I spent a good bit of time in the RC section trying desperately to highlight and underline things since that was the method I was familiar with. This was another big mistake because RC is my toughest section to finish and that time lost was really valuable.

I'm retaking on the 22nd, and in my practice I've just decided that it isn't even worth it to try to highlight or emphasize things using the tools provided in the interface during the actual test and I've practiced with just doing my high / low res outlines on paper instead.

Has anyone else had this experience?

Hi everyone,

I recently began the logic game curriculum and have been doing the LG drill sets. As you know there are two games per set. I'm usually finishing at least game with 100% accuracy but unable to finish the second game during the ~17 minute time limit. As I continue going through the drills and blind review, I'm wondering what people suggest aiming for during the blind review of a full logic game section?

I know, ideally we should all want to reach for -0 in blind review for every section. But, for someone wanting to score in the mid 160s, what is a promising score/range for a LG blind review?

Thanks!

Hello all,

I've been attacking logical reasoning pretty intensely lately and blind reviewing most, if not all of my timed sections. On my good days I am scoring about 17 correct. Today I scored 20/26, which I am very happy with. However this +20 isn't consistent for me. I would say I'm usually scoring ~17/~18 more often than +20. I'd like to make the +20 consistent. Aside from BR, which I am doing, do any of you have any other suggestions to break through LR? In an ideal world I would be getting them all right but I'll settle for +20 on exam day.

Recently I started reviewing my old wrong answers more regularly. To do this, I print out a fresh copy of the test, cut out all of the questions I circled, which indicates the questions I struggled with while the clock was running. I also cut out all of the questions I got wrong. After I have my stack of issue questions, I review them again and try to answer them on my own and write down the explanation or something that I missed initially, on the back. Then, I put them all in a zip lock bag. Before I go to work and before I get home, I select a handful and review them leisurely for 10-15 minutes. I have only been doing this for a few days but I am hoping that I will find it helpful over the next couple of weeks.

I also started a "wrong answers" journal. Here I will usually write down my reasoning for picking certain answers that ultimately end up being wrong, and then I write the explanation and try to identify patterns in my poor decision making. In doing so I have found some trends. For instance, in the past I used to pick the answer choice that strengthened the argument for necessary assumption questions or MSS, for some reason. Now I don't. But this method combined with cutting out my issue questions has only made a tiny dent in my progress.

Something I have noticed is, when I am scoring 17-20 right, I get 9-10 correct of the first 10. However, I'm only getting to 21-22/25-26 questions and I'm blind guessing on the 3-4 that I do not have time for. Of these 3-4 that I do not have time for, I usually get 2-3 correct during my blind review. I will say that I am slow when answering the first 10 questions. I spend about 13-15 minutes on the first 10. I'm trying to shave this down to 10-12 minutes but I'm struggling to do so. I have found that I get hung up on 1-2 during the first 10, either because I am misreading something or because the language and wording is convoluted and trips me up mid way and then causes my delay. This seems inevitable but perhaps there is a way around this? I have tried skipping these in the past but it only gives me anxiety later on because I'm worried I skipped an easy question.

Lastly, my blind review scores are usually between 20-23 ish.

Anyone know of any additional resources or advice that really helped push them over the edge on their LR success? I'm very desperate to keep improving on LR since it has been my biggest weakness on the exam and my journey to improve on this section has been a very slow and painful one.

Thanks in advance for any advice you may have.

So far, I have watched the videos about making low res summaries for each paragraph, and I have also watched the RC question webinar. I have also been drilling passages from PT 40-49 untimed. On harder passages that is convoluted I end up missing 3 or 4 questions, and on the easier passages I end up missing 1. Can anyone provide their RC strategies that has helped them?

When answering necessary assumption questions in LR, how do you not fall for the trap answer choices that provide a sufficient assumption? I am finding that when given a SA answer choice, I will often select it.

Thanks in advance!

Hey everyone! So I'm really struggling with the lesson on drawing valid conclusions. Particularly, the quiz titled "Quiz on Drawing Valid Conclusions with Translations z w/ Answers" and every subsequent one. I know that the lessons are cumulative, so I haven't been able to do any other LR lessons until I surpass this one and fully understand it. Has anyone else struggled with this particular quiz/lesson too? if so, are there any tips, tricks, or additional resources out there that can assist me in understanding and moving past this lesson?

Thanks in advance!

Do we review after each section or after the entire test?

If you have two separate conditionals both with the same suf or nec condition, but the modifiers for the suf or nec condition are different in each sentence, are the statement letters the same?

All cats which are furry and cute eat dogs

C->D

All cats which are bald and ugly eat dogs.

C->D or should it be C'->D

Alternatively, are "furry and cute" and "bald and ugly" simply subsets of cats? Does the necessary condition of D have two different sufficient conditions in this context?

Thank you!

I only got to the Logic Games section of the Core Curriculum two days ago, and I just finished Problem Set 4. The problem sets on the CC are all 2 games each, which should be done in 17.5 mins. However, I'm getting them done in like 30 mins which is way over the time limit, but I've gotten all the answers right (every single one) and my methodology is right.

Is it bad it's taking me this long to do them (as I only recently started), or am I expected to be doing them within the lsat time period (17 mins) as a beginner? Will my timing improve as I go on? I'm worried.

[Resolved]

I just finished the CC and am beginning to foolproof games as they are by far my weakest subject (-9 to -13 on a mid-160 test). Unfortunately, I am out of games from the CC to drill and I would like to save as many PT's as possible as I plan to study for at least another six months to a year. Is there any resource for getting the games from PT 1-35 that doesn't include paying for the upgrade to ultimate+? I heard there used to be a LG bundle but LSAC took it away. Any help would be appreciated, thank you!

If I negate "all", it becomes "not all." But doesn't "not all" imply two distinct possibilities, namely, "some" and "none"? If I negate the statement "all turtles are slow" as "it is not the case that all turtles are slow." Can't it either mean "some turtles are not slow" (there is at least one turtle that is NOT slow out of all the turtles on this earth) or "none of the turtles are slow" (they are ALL FAST AND FURIOUS BEASTS.) When I negate a conditional statement in LSAT, should I be mindful of these two distinct possibilities?

Any reply is welcome.

Thanks.

I'm constantly getting tripped up over some of the language in Method of Reasoning answer choices. Can someone dumb down the explanation of "an overly broad generalization" for me?

In my head, this is a statement about ALL of something based on ONE example. Whenever I see this in an answer choice I get really insecure and am hesitant. But because it "sounds good" and "applicable" I pick it under time pressure, which is not always the smartest thing to do.

If we are told, as X increases Y increases. Can we infer that as Y increases X increases?

So, during this video JY says that answer choice A is wrong because of the strict standards of a must be true question. I was just wondering if A. would be correct if it was a MSS question. Basically, if I still have to make a bigger assumption than is warranted for a MSS. https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-86-section-4-question-20/

Hi everyone,

I've been following 7sage for a while now. I have been studying for the LSAT since June and I am scoring at about 160. I really need to get my reading comp score up! I am taking the February LSAT next week and I've tried many approaches. If anyone has anything (especially if it works quickly) I'd love to hear it.

Thank you!

I'd say I'm pretty darn familiar with the 19 common types of flaws. However, I feel like I've never seen a circular reasoning flaw actually on a PT. Sometimes I second guess myself on a tricky flaw question when it's in the AC's. Anyway, would love it if anyone has come across one of these flaws in their recent PT's?

I'm into the high 60's series, so hopefully I haven't been oblivious to them all this time. But I do think they are a rarer flaw.

Hi, conditional reasoning is something I have struggled with and wanted to start drilling to become better at. I was wondering whether anyone has ever compiled a list of questions that utilize conditional reasoning as the method to arrive at the correct answer? If so, would you be willing to share that list? Thank you!

Hey y'all. So I'm currently scoring an average of -4 on each LR section. I feel like my wrong answers are all over the place (some are incorrect for misreading while others for not understanding stimulus or letting an answer choice trick me). I have been dedicated to studying and I have not seen improvement. Idk what to do. Ive been doing blind review and going over all the incorrect questions. ANY Suggestions are appreciated.

I've got a quick question about keeping a log sheet for the questions i missed. Should I only input the questions I miss after BR? i'm assuming the answer is yes? but if not, please drop some quick wisdom on me, thanks!

So I get that lsac is making 7sage take off all the game tutorials. Can we come up with videos without the test shown and just have videos with making of the game board. Is that possible?

Thnaks

Hi,

I understand why C is right, but what I have trouble understanding is why D is wrong.

I mean, in terms of D, couldn't it be argued that Politician P is "appealing to wholly irrelevant issues" by talking about taxpayers' happiness to distract from the real issue of whether or not there is an obligation to raise taxes?

Any #help would be appreciated!

Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-26-section-2-question-04/

I am able to recognize premise, conclusions and the approach to classify the inference family LR. However, when I see the questions I freak out and get totally lost. All the answer choices look alike. It is hard to decipher the correct answer and I give up. Help................. !!!!!!!!!!!!!! . Please and Thank you.

Hey 7Sagers,

Here's the official January 2020 LSAT Discussion Thread.

**Please keep all discussions of the January 2020 LSAT here!**(/red)

Rules:

✅ You can identify experimental sections. 🙆‍♀️

You can say things such as the following:

❌ You can't discuss specific questions. 🙅‍♂️

You CANNOT say things such as the following:

In case this helps anyone:

When down to 2 ACs that weaken an argument to 2 different degrees, pick the one that matches the degree of the conclusion.

When down to ACs that provide sufficient and/or necessary conditions that could serve as the missing link (SA), pick the one that clearly triggers or fails something. If it's a mystery, that doesn't help at all.

Don't second guess yourself when only one AC is right. If all other ACs have been confidently eliminated, flagging that question will only cost you valuable time.

When down to 2 ACs that both mention the key word or concept you know will be in the correct AC, only one is in precisely the right context. Make sure the key element is performing/describing the correct thing.

If you're confused when piecing together a list of facts, some with numbers, some with %s, give the situation real round numbers and apply them to the contending ACs. Don't mistake many for most. Many could be some, which could be a different subset from some other some. (Some historians claim X, many historians are wrong - do not assume overlap.) Some can mean just one. 

When looking for a NA in an argument that strikes you as just plain weak, say to yourself, "Within the universe of this shitty argument, which AC points out something that matters, something that absolutely has to be true or else the shitty argument has no leg to stand on in the first place?"

When 2 ACs have the proper conditions to satisfy what MBT, pick the one that matches the stimulus in terms of what is sufficient versus what is necessary. Don't get turned around by the language. What is literally required? Put everything methodically into S->N. Don't overthink.

Parse out the conclusion of convoluted arguments. Sometimes it's just stating that an action will lead to a goal, the NA is that it's possible for said action to lead to said goal.

With parallels, remember sentence order NEVER matters and logic order ALWAYS matters. Be sensitive to distinctions such as "any" versus "one instance."

When there's no obvious explanation for a phenomenon in a RRE, look for an AC that would push one element of the equation in the particular direction that would provide an alternative explanation of the phenomenon. Do NOT give in to bringing in outside bias (such as generic costs less than brand names).  

Don't let ACs bait you into "attacking" or "rethinking" a premise - you must assume all premises are completely true no matter what. Period. You are only trying to attack the manner in which the premises "prove" the conclusion. Never pick an AC that merely restates a premise. That's not even good enough for PSA. It does NOTHING.

Never settle for, pick or eliminate an AC you don't understand. Never help an AC out and try to make it fit the mold of a particular flaw. ONLY pick it if it makes total sense.

Be sensitive to WHILE as a conclusion indicator. While X (concession), really Y (conclusion).

Argument parts sometimes can be assumptions or denials of assumptions. Label them as you go. 

Don't assume the exact same number of people need to be tested in an experiment. Pay attention when a stimulus starts to compare apples to oranges (or bone samples to blood samples).

Be sensitive to subtlety. (Saying it's wrong for a country to diminish prosperity isn't the same as saying it's wrong to hinder the growth of prosperity.)

If you're spending too much time stuck between 2 ACs, SKIP, read again on Round 2 with the rest eliminated.

Always bear in mind that just because someone claims, says, believes, thinks something does NOT make it one of the things in the stimulus that we accept as true. Accept what the author says. Everything else is suspect. 

https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/6816

This is from Nichole Hopkins one of the great sages, this is pure gold for RC.