I am wondering if I should take the LSAT again... I have studied for about a year now. My average score has been 154, but the week before the test I scored a 161. I was very excited and positive that I would do decent on the LSAT-Flex.. but I ended up with a 151.

On the day of the test, my test was delayed 30 minutes and I had to sit there and wait in silence until I was matched with someone who could conduct the test with my accommodation. It really messed with my nerves the first section, but I used all the skills I could to calm down.

I was really hoping to only sit for this one time. I feel pretty burnt out, but I was shooting for some schools around T-14 to T-30 schools and only one T-2 reach school... Is there any advice that people have? Is it worth putting in more time to try again? I've heard mixed things about people's score not changing much. At this point I just want to start working on my other application needs...

Hey anyone down to go through this game. According to the information out there it’s seen as one of the most challenging grouping games. I completed the game untimed and only missed 2; so when I went back to the video explanation on the site, JY set the game up different from mine. I used RSTY for my slots and GPLH for my moving variables. I got question 9 wrong because I flat out could not figure out what it was asking me:( and I got 11 wrong - now for this question I did huddle my variables and realized G was the most restricted, however I didn’t understand why answer B was correct over C :( ... can someone please provide a video and/or feedback for this game.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-28-section-2-game-2/

Starting to foolproof logic games, and I'm wondering what other people's personal practices are for the process (i.e. how many games do you do per day, do you wait until you've mastered a game before you start a new one, or do you rotate between a few while mastering them, etc.) I can't help but feel like I'm neglecting other sections of the test by devoting so much time to only LG, so I'm also wondering if y'all do different section types during a study day. Any details you can provide or tips about the process would be super helpful!

I have a quick question on the application of the "or" rule in the Games. For an example, lets say that in a 8 slash sequencing line, if a rule states that L comes right before S or R comes right before H go together, this is an inclusive or right. If L comes right before S, it is still possible that R also can come right before H right?

Hi, everyone! I wonder if y'all could give me some advice on how to improve my speed while also maintaining accuracy?

For the past few months, I have been practicing untimed PT sections (1-35) because I wanted to focus on improving my accuracy first. I started with a 144 for an untimed PT, and I have recently achieved at my 170 (but still untimed). Now I think I should focus on improving my speed, because under timed condition, I cannot finish all my LR questions. Usually there would be 4 or 5 left and I don't have extra time to check those questions that I am not pretty sure. I know that if I cannot increase my speed, then my actual score would be much lower. Therefore, I was wondering if y'all could give me some advice? I would really appreciate your help and kindness! Thank you!!

I am working on making an interactive flow chart, but I thought I would share what I have typed up so far. Please feel free to correct/add on, or give any suggestions on memorizing other than flashcards. I have a pretty ambitious idea for a flowchart/app, but it's hard to work on that and also study for LSAT so probably won't happen anytime soon.

**Weaken**

weaken

most vulnerable to the conclusion

most vulnerable

counts as evidence against

calls into question

**Strengthen**

strengthen

most helps to justify

Support

**Sufficient Assumption**

true if assumed

enable conclusion to be properly drawn

justify the conclusion

the conclusion follows logically if (This is also a keyword for MBT so watch out)

**Debate**

counter

in response to

**Paradox/Conflict**

most helps to explain

resolve

explain

account for

discrepancy

surprising result

**Conclusion**

main point

main conclusion

**Must Be True**

must be true

follows logically (also a keyword for SA so watch out)

inference

properly inferred

properly concluded

properly drawn

**MSS**

most strongly supported

most strongly suggests

**NA**

necessary

depends

required

relies

assume/assumption

the conclusion does not follow unless

the argument assumes which one

**Method **

argument proceeds by

describes

argumentative technique

method of reasoning

strategy of argumentation

**AP**

role in argument

function in argument

argument part

the reference to

the statement that

**Flaw**

flaw

most vulnerable to criticism

questionable technique employed

So I am just now starting logic games and I am somewhat confused on when I should be doing the full proof method. Is that something that should wait until I start to PT, or should I full proof the problem sets from the CC as well? I am completely new to the games, and as expected I struggled on the first sequencing games. I am still having some trouble understanding if I need to go back and do the game over again or not like the full proof method says to do. If so, am I supposed to full proof every single problem set game that I struggle with initially?

If a sentence gives an explanation, does this mean the sentence offers support? I've run into this issue twice on argument part questions. 70.1.17 was one, the other was on another test.

As an example I've made a simple argument:

Conclusion: Global warming is real.

Premise 1: Global temperatures are rising.

Explanation of premise1: Global temperatures rising means that a global phenomenon, like global warming, must be occurring.

I've tried to make an argument where you have a clear conclusion, a supporting premise, then a sentence that gives more information on the premise. Does that explaining sentence give support to anything? Is an explanation the same as support?

On BR, I always get SA and NA right because I can take the time to diagram them correctly and really think about it. But when I'm timed there's just no way I can coherently figure out the diagram in enough time that I should. Anyone else having this problem and have any tips?

Thanks!

I'm having difficulty understanding why the correct answer choice for this problem is A. I'm struggling to derive from the stimulus that the government should continue trying to determine acceptable toxin levels. Any help would be appricated!

Hello,

For a while, I have been practicing Logical Reasoning and I cannot seem to cancel out irrelevant answers immediately. I seem to get bogged down by them especially for strengthen, weaken,and sometimes necessary assumptions, and RRE. I have to really think hard about the 4 answer choices before choosing the right one. However, even then, I can still get them wrong. I understand that you cannot get every question right. But I would appreciate you guys for a general principle to eliminating irrelevant answers quickly so that at least I can boil down to 2 answers?

Your help will be much appreciated. Thank you.

Is doing the bundle 1-35 still a good idea in order to master games? Because people are saying now the games are different from the older games. Once I finish the CC on games how should I full proof? Should I do 1-35? Or for example 15-49?

na

Can anybody help me with this question, because it is driving me crazy.

Why is B wrong? The stimulus clearly states "anygiven individual molecule of substance can activate..." how is this statement not supporting B?

And how can C be right? how can we be sure that no sweeter substance will be found? What about half a molecule for instance?Are we supposed to assume that it is impossible to activate a receptor with less than a whole molecule?

This question is truly infuriating, any help would be greatly appreaciated!

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-21-section-3-question-16/

Hi 7Sage!

I was wondering if any of you blind review logic games? Fool proofing has dramatically helped my understanding and my competence on logic games and I am continuing to do the fool-proofing method. But I don't know if blind reviewing my logic games after I first take a game is really necessary.. it seems that logic games is just fundamentally different in regards to study strategy than blind reviewing logical reasoning and reading comp. Blind review for both of LR and RC have helped a lot of course.

Just thought I would ask for some opinions.

Thanks!

Hi all! I'm wondering whether we can enlarge our screen, as shown in this video ( ), while doing FLEX? I prefer to read with "only passage" function without turning pages, so I need to make the words small. This strains my eyes. So I am wondering whether we are allowed to enlarge the screen like that. In the video I use Macbook pro, and I enlarge the screen with two fingers. If this is allowed, I would highly recommend this approach to those who are taking FLEX. It allows you to read without scrolling or turning pages, and it is very fast and convenient! Thanks!

How does everyone approach the comparative passage in reading comprehension?

I've seen a couple of posts that advocate for reading passage A, going through the questions then reading passage B and again going through the questions (https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/1234 https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/8533). The presumptive benefit is not falling into probably what is the most common trap answer choice - a detail that is discussed in one passage but not the other.

Admittedly I have not tried this approach (and I do plan on experimenting later with this) but for point-at-issue questions in LR, I have never liked the approach of reading one response, eliminating answer choices and then reading the second response before hopefully honing in on the correct answer. For whatever reason, I just find it too mechanical and feel that I am better able to get a sense of the tension in the two statements by reading them concurrently instead of 'jumping around' the screen from stimulus to ACs, to a different part of the stimulus back to the ACs again. Perhaps somewhat related is that I find that doing the acceptable situation question in LG as I read the rules to be somewhat discombobulating and that it disrupts the natural rhythm of figuring out how the rules interact with one another (I'd happily trade away the additional 10 seconds in efficiency for a stronger comprehension of the game board).

Additionally, I think the digital format compounds the amount of needlessly bouncing around in the comparative passage in terms of having to click through each question.

My current approach is to read Passage A in totality, then creating a low resolution summary for the structure of this passage. Afterwards, I go onto Passage B, again reading the passage in its entirety and before building out another quick low resolution summary for this second passage and finally I quickly consider how the two passages are related.

Previously, I read Passage A (creating a low res summary for each paragraph as I went) and would immediately proceed to Passage B (also creating a low res summary for each paragraph as I went) and felt that this handicapped me in getting a sense of how the two passages as a whole related to each other. Also, I think going right from one to the other further confused me to what details were included in each passage.

Does anyone else do something similar? I know that RC tends to be the most divergent in terms of strategy but just curious as to what others are doing here.

Hi everyone! As I'm now transitioning to digital LSAT, I found that highlighting is difficult and inefficient to do on the screen. Maybe that's because I'm not used to it yet. I used to put some symbols beside the texts that I think is important. But I can't do it now. I think I really need to cut down a significant amount of highlighting in RC. Which is painful since I'm so used to drawing anything I want on the paper. Can anyone share what you usually highlight in RC? Is not highlighting anything a better strategy? Thanks!

Can we all agree that question number 7 of LSAT 21 Section 3 has got to be the most ridiculous quesiton of all time. So just because John's face was reflected in a mirror, his friends did not recognize him? lolwut

Hello!

I've been studying for the LSAT for quite some time now. I took a course last summer and am still having trouble with sufficient assumption questions. I know the videos say that these are freebies once understood but I have yet to get there! Does anyone have any tips? I've done so many problem sets of solely SA questions along with watching the videos but when it comes to trying them myself I seem to get stuck.

I have been struggling with Necessary Assumptions questions for a while. After rereading Ellen Cassidy's Loophole book I have finally had my eureka moment. In all honesty NA questions after using her methodology are not that hard.

Identify conclusion(Obviously)

Identify Premises(Bear with me)

Attack the argument like you would for a weakening question

Negate your Loophole

If you follow those steps you will begin to see major improvement in your NA questions. I think the reason for this because most tutors reccomend that you just read attentively when doing NA questions, but this course of action enables you to be on the offensive rather the defensive when looking at NA questions.

I have noticed that when it is a question type that is focused on attacking the argument I do great. So, this course action enables me to do what I'm good at.

If you have any questions PM!!!!!

Hi,

I was really stuck on this question because both B and D look like they weaken the argument here. Can anyone explain why D does not weaken the argument?

Any #help would be appreciated!

#HELP

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-june-2007-section-3-question-21/

Can someone please explain to me how we can automatically make the inference that M cannot go into 3, when it appears M is also associated with Speech as well as honors and Speech appears to have no restrictions for table 3 ?!?! So Shouldn’t this open the possibility of M being able to be in table 3 as well, even though the rules declare that all variable associated with Honors be in tables 1 and 2 ?!?!?

Hi,

Can anyone explain why B here is 100% wrong? I thought that B could weaken the argument because it could state the conclusion of the study is wrong.

Thanks!

Any #help would be appreciated!

Hey everyone! Trying to improve my speed with games that a SUPER heavy on COMPLEX Lawgic.

Any recommendations for good games from 1-36, 37-41 or 72-81? (These are the games that I've already done; the rest I'm saving as fresh PT's). Additionally, any games that use bi-conditionals would be extra-beneficial since this is also probably an area of improvement for me.

Thanks in advance!