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?

Hi,

So the correct answer here was E. I can see why all the wrong answers are wrong, but I had a really hard time accepting that E is right because I saw "doctors" here as referring to ALL doctors (and I don't think we know anything about all doctors from this stimulus). I made this inference because from past experience in other LSAT preptests, in the absence of quantifying language like some/most, I thought that we construe it to refer to ALL (ie PT70.S4.Q18, where E is correct because "managers" refers to ALL managers).

#Help

Thanks!

Best regards

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-71-section-3-question-23/

Two boring questions:

Do we need to print out admission ticket? I'm assuming no but want to be safe

Do we need to have our phones with us to show we turned them off?

I will be taking the LSAT-Flex in t-minus 46 hours and am petrified about reading comp. My reading comp scores vary greatly -sometimes it is -8/9 and sometimes it is -0/1. I have gotten my logical reasoning and logic games scores to where I want them to be but cannot afford getting 9 reading comp questions wrong come test day.

Does anyone have a method I could use to get more consistent with this section? I assume that if I am able to get -0/1 my problem is related to my understanding but rather some other issue.

I am thinking about just reading an abundance of actual passages to get primed but do not know what else I can do :/

#help

For the parallel method of reasoning questions, if the stimulus concludes with "therefore they should not do this thing." Can we eliminate answers based on the negation in the conclusion? Like if the conclusion in the answer choice largely matches, but says "therefore they should do this thing" can we eliminate it because it doesn't match the negation?

Like for should/should not statements, does it have to match directly?

Thanks!

Do you have any advice on when to do grouping games regularly vs. when to do grouping games with a chart?

I've been studying for about 6 months to prepare for the June test next week. On my first few PT after the core curriculum, LG was my best section and I was only missing 1-2 per test. Even though I do problem sets on the tough games that I have missed questions on, I now miss between 4-8 per test, which makes me a little nervous only being 5 days out from the real test. Obviously I don't have a ton of time to really foolproof, but does anyone have tips on being more consistent in LG?

I sometimes see a rule that says something like:

X does not play in the same match with K

J.Y then interprets this rule as X --- > /K

Where as I take this rule to mean the same as a bi-conditional.

can someone #help clear this up for me?

I'm signed up for the July test, and my primary goals are drilling logic games and taking practice tests. After watching a 7Sage webinar on skipping, I've been inspired to think of the test differently and try something new as a secondary goal. Up to this point, I've been averaging one skip in LR with -5 or -4 in each section. I would like to shave that down to an average of -3 by using a few more skips in exchange for time at the end to go over any other tricky questions. (Essentially, I would like to choose which questions to get incorrect.)

So far, my issue has been trying to rush through the questions to shore up more time by the time I reach the last question. When I do, my accuracy suffers. This is only my first week of trying this new strategy but it does pain me a bit to see my score go down in my drills as a result.

People who have used this method successfully, what am I missing here? Do I simply need more time practicing it? Is five weeks before test day enough time to make it work? Would I be better off doing more blind review to sharpen my conceptual understanding? If more/better BR is the trick, what should I be asking myself to go faster without losing accuracy?

I never thought this day would come, but come it has.

I've been struggling to decide if it is worth the time/beneficial to watch the explanation video of a LR question I get right. I have been getting some hard questions right, and I feel pretty confident in my answers. I wonder if it would be even harmful to watch the video in the fears that it would confuse me if J.Y's explanation isn't the same as the one I had in my head, or if that is helpful? I'm studying on a pretty limited time frame, so I wonder if I get a question right, I should just move on.

I have a quick question on the meaning of only if. I realize that for an example if a statement says: An living organism is a human only if the organism is not a dog. I know that can translate to If a living organism is a human, it is not a dog. However, in a MBT, MSS, or NA scenarios, would the use of ONLY IF potentially count the answer choice wrong even if the statement has identitical conditional structures? For an example: What if its the case that A living organism that is human is not a cat? A bird? a plane?

Hello,

I am using the Powerscore bible for Linear Game, but the information is at times overwhelming. I am looking through 7sage to see if they discuss linear games. But I am having a hard time noticing if it is labeled as something else. Would anyone be able to clarify this?

Thank you in advance!

Hi,

I was wondering if "provided that" is a necessary or sufficient assumption indicator? (Please see below)

You will appreciate cultural differences "provided" that you reflect on your own civilization.

How about "contingent on", "assuming that", "as long as"?

Thanks

Has anyone tried color coding sufficient/necessary conditions in LR?

If so, has it made it easier for you, even up to the point that you don't have to write it out any more.

For example, highlighting all sufficient conditions yellow and necessary conditions orange. You can map it out easier on paper then as well.

In the unless statements, don't highlight the not in the sufficient condition, just the rest of the sufficient condition so its read with the negation done already.

Or the 3 seconds to physically clicking the button to change highlight colors just kills too much time?

Any thoughts... Thanks

Is this an example of a poor comparison of laws at one time vs the present? I just can't seem to make the connection here. Thoughts?

Admin note: edited title

I'm taking the Sept test and am looking for suggestions of hard/weird games to drill with over the next week (don't worry, I've been studying for the past year so it's not like I've just now decided to take games seriously :) ). I just know that games have become a bit more unconventional in the more recent tests, and I want to practice these types of games to get my brain in the right mode before test day.

So, any recommendations for hard/weird games that have similar properties to the hard/weird games we may expect on the Sept test?

Thanks and happy studying :)

Can "should" really be part of a conditional statement or is "should" only used for Psuedo Sufficient Assumption Questions/Answers... "Should" means I most likely need to do this, its not a guaranteed result/solution like a conditional statement -necessary condition. Would appreciate everyone's thoughts on this because its all over the lsat prep tests and I cant find it covered in the syllabus.

Can anyone help me out with this one? I ended up getting it right by process of elimination but I'm having trouble figuring out how to write it in conditional logic.

Thanks!

I think this is a necessary assumption question. Correct me if I'm wrong please!

Summary of stimulus:

Context:

In the EU, schoolchildren do daily calisthenics during school.

In North America, schoolchildren rarely do daily calisthenics during school.

Premise:

Tests show that North American children are weaker, slower, and shorter-winded than European children.

Conclusion:

North American schoolchildren can be made physically fit -> North American schoolchildren do daily calisthenics

Notes:

Reading the ACs:

A) Children -> can be made physically fit by daily calisthenics. This should be crossed out since we don't need ALL children to be made physically fit when our conclusion is just about North American children. Is there another reason to eliminate A?

B ) Children -> can be made equally physically fit by daily calisthenics; I don't know if the children have to be made equally physically fit. They just need to get to a level where they are physically fit. Wrong.

C) We are concerned about physical fitness in this argument, not about health. Wrong.

D) This says school calisthenics are a necessary factor in EU children's physical fitness--this is what the author assumes.

E) We don't care about the children eating more nutritious diets/exercising daily--we care about calisthenics! Wrong.

Am I writing the conditionals in A and B wrong? I originally picked A because I thought it would guarantee the conclusion--which is wrong to do bc this isn't an SA question. Is A wrong for additional reasons that I've listed above?

Admin note: edited title

I have been working on Logic Games for about 5 weeks now and I feel like I am hitting a wall. Because I have been fool-proofing and have a limited number of hours in a day, I have only been able to get through "Introduction to Logic Games & Sequencing Games" and "Sequencing Games with a Twist."

I keep redoing old games and getting one or two wrong. This is frustrating and also unclear if it is evaluating me properly because I am definitely remembering questions that I have done 5 + times. So, as much as I try to play each game anew every time, it is hard to really do so under time constraints. When I am up against the clock, I find myself picking the answer I remember.

Do y'all think it makes sense to move on? Or keep fool-proofing?

Hi,

I think this question is infamously hard... can anyone explain why the answer is D and not C? Both C and D looked incredibly attractive :(

P.S. I have read a lot of explanations for this question, and the top 2 I have seen (but don't feel fully address why D is right and C is wrong) are:

explanation #1-- D is the only correctly qualified answer choice: D is the only one that talks about "viewers" and all the other answer choices talk about other groups of people that may not include the surveyed viewers.

My problem with explanation #1: D talks about "viewers surveyed immediately prior to the debate", while the stimulus talks about "viewers surveyed immediately after the debate". These 2 groups may or may not intersect. In addition C talks people who people who watched the televised debate, which also may or may not intersect with the "viewers surveyed immediately after the debate" described in the stimulus. Thus, both C and D may or may not qualified correctly.

explanation #2-- it is totally possible for us to take the information in C and not weaken the stimulus at all. After all, let's say that the people who watched the debate were 5% more likely to vote for Tanner than those who did not watch. It is still possible for the viewers surveyed among the people who watched the debate to be biased for Lopez.

My problem with explanation #2: a flaw also exist with D-- that the viewers surveyed immediately prior to the debate are not the same people surveyed after the debate. This could mean that D could be true without weakening the argument too. In this respect, I feel like it is still quite difficult to balance between the 2 answer choices when both seem flawed, and it is hard to tell which one is less flawed.

Thanks!

Best regards

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!!

Does anyone know what the difference is between SeqOne games in LG and SeqPure games in LG? They seem to be more or less the same lol.

Hi everyone,

I'm a bit confused about the answer choice D. #help

Premise 1: Each of the EMP winners from the past 25 years covered by Acme retirement plan

Intermediate Conclusion/Premise 2: the Acme Plan offers the winners a financially secure future

Conclusion:It is probably a good plan for anyone with similar retirement needs.

Stem: most vulnerable to criticism

Correct Answer(D): It takes for granted that some winners of the Economic Merit Prize have deliberately selected the Acme retirement plan, rather than having had it chosen for them by their employers.

I think the Intermediate Conclusion does not really follow the Premise 1. But If we should accept all the premises, then we probably need to accept the Intermediate Conclusion. After accepting it, even if these winners have not actively chosen the plan, anyone with similar needs may still be financially benefitted. How does D points out the vulnerability?

Or, maybe we do not need to accept the Intermediate Conclusion, though it's also a premise?