Does anyone know if the CC has a list or if there's a lesson on this? Thanks!

Why are the target times (LG) under the video explanations often different from the target time listed in the "timing" column in the results panel? It seems like the latter are almost always a little longer. I have been going off the ones under the videos, but it is very difficult. Which do you reference?

Thanks

Does anybody have any tips for how to determine when to use conditional statements or rely on intuition to answer sufficient assumption questions? Or should we always be mapping out the stimulus using lawgic? I’m having trouble using this method efficiently, and would appreciate any advice you might have! Thank you in advance!

I'm taking flex in a few days, and I've been drilling LR timed sections. I don't know what's going on but my 2nd LR is always always better than my 1st. I'm talking like from -8 to -1 flutuation on the same test. Am I overthinking 1st LR and just more relaxed on the 2nd, what's going on? Anyone else have suggestions, thank you.

Hey everyone! Curious as to what your thoughts on the following question:

Do ALL necessary assumptions strengthen an argument? (NA -> Strengthen)

Obviously, necessary assumption prevent your argument from collapsing but does this strengthen an argument per se? To use J.Y.'s example - I play basketball, therefore, I am the best Basketball player in the world - for all intents and purposes there are an infinite amount of necessary assumptions (I am alive, I have two hands and two feet, I can dribble, I actually inhabit THIS world, etc.) does patching up one of those holes necessarily strengthen the argument?

I understand that to qualify as strengthening the additional support can be VERY subtle does precluding the death of the argument so to speak necessarily entail additional support?

Interesting to contemplate but if you believe that all necessary assumptions questions strengthen an argument then contra-positively you must accept that if something doesn't strengthen the argument then it cannot be a necessary assumption (/Strengthen -> /NA)

However, I feel as if there are plenty of statements that do not strengthen but are still necessary (/Strengthen (-S-) NA). To fall back on J.Y's example, I inhabit this world; I feel as if this does not strengthen the argument per se but obviously certainly necessary.

What prompted this post was [SPOILER ALERT FOR PT75] question number fifteen on the first logical reasoning section; the answer choice is practically a necessary assumption.

What are your thoughts?

I see this book by powerscore recommended all over the place as an essential supplement for LG.

Does anyone have any experience using this book in addition to J.Y.’s videos on 7sage?

I picked up the book and am about 150 pages in but I feel as though much of it is stuff I already know. Is using this book redundant?

Hi everyone,

I am confused about how long I should be waiting between doing a game and then repeating that same game. In the foolproof method video, JY seems to imply that you do the game back to back, over and over in the same sitting/day.

Do you prefer to do the same game multiple times in one day or wait 24+ hours before repeating the game?

Thanks!

Lately I have been having a lot of trouble with "must be true" questions. Can anyone explain why C was the correct answer choice for this question, and not D?

Thank you!

Hi,

So I got this question wrong because I chose D, and I thought that D was right because, from lines 1-7, I thought that it was heavily implying (if not outright asserting) that researchers previously emphasized that gonadal hormones' effect on behavior because they believed that it was the only thing that affected behavior. I thought this because of line 7 ("it has now become clear, however, that other hormones...") which implies that it wasn't clear before that other hormones could affect behavior.

Thus, I chose D because I thought that the new research was essentially correcting the old incorrect belief that only gonadal hormones affected behavior. However, JY seems to ignore this possibility and states that this "undue emphasis" does not count as a misconception. Nevertheless, when I look at dictionary examples of how to use the word "misconception", the examples seem to align with my understanding (https://www.yourdictionary.com/misconception) of misconception = "we incorrectly thought that X happened only because of Y."

Along these lines, I thought that "refuting" this misconception was a perfectly valid description of the passage because the new research showing that other hormones affect behavior is technically "proving wrong" the notion that only gonadal hormones affect behavior.

Gosh, can anybody show me where I went wrong here?

Easy to get down to D & E.

The final decision is just that complaints happen when they are rising and that is different than when they're at their highest?

And furthermore that margins are at their greatest when prices drop. Meaning there is lag in the price drop to consumers?

Hey guys! I am really struggling to see the connection between diagramming lawgic and how to actually use it for LR.. any advise?

The questions I miss on LG are almost never the hard questions or even sub questions. I average -0 to -3, but when I miss questions, they are almost always due to a careless mistake. For instance I am checking 82.2.1, a very easy "140" MBT inference question that I missed. I could slap myself for missing this, but this is typical of the kind of mistake I'll make.

This is the most frustrating thing ever. I know I feel a little nervous doing timed sections and I can rush, where I read too quickly and work too fast. Even since grade school making careless errors in math has always been my downfall.

Please for the love of god someone offer good advice on how to stop making careless errors in LG? This doesn't happen nearly as much in LR and RC.

Hello guys please when solving an LR problem is it okay to ignore the context and read the argument only to be a little fast, since we just need premise and conclusion.

Thank you

Hey Everyone!

Just curious about how you all are using (if at all) the Section Difficulty meter for Logical Reasoning?

I'm drilling LR sections in-between practice tests and there is obviously some fluctuation from section to section; part of that is being only 3 months into my studies (completed CC ~month ago) so there is naturally some variability in my scores. But the other components are of course luck and difficulty.

Anyways, I'm trying to track my progress and it obviously is not going to be linear but I'm curious to what extent, if any, I can assess my progress with the section difficulty meter. For example, is a -2 in a 1star section more or less equal to a -4 in a 4star section; conversely, is a -5 in a 2star section much worse than a -5 in a 4star section?

Does anyone alternatively try to gauge the difficulty by looking at the curve of the test? (obvious drawback here is that it's including potentially a very difficult LG or RC section)?

Maybe the 'right' answer here is to not be too focused on the score (minus whatever) and be instead focused on BR performance and understanding lol but to the extent that a (perhaps over-)emphasis on the raw score is somewhat inevitable, what are your thoughts?

Hi all,

I think I am starting to understand how to tackle the Logic Games section! I started out truly baffled but am now drilling some of the games I had trouble with and am getting into a groove.

However, I still struggle with 2 things: 1) timing and 2) whether to split the game board or not.

I find that for some games, I can draw the game board and jot down the rules in no time but sit there for 4-5 minutes just trying to figure out how I can put rules 1/2/3/etc. together. Sometimes, I even end up figuring out all of the inferences correctly (or find every possible rendition of my 4 game boards for one game) but look at the clock and see that I have 1 minute to answer the remaining 3-4 questions which is NOT good.

Is there a trick to knowing when to figure out inferences up front vs. unraveling them through the questions themselves? And when should I spend time splitting my game board up versus opting out (for example, in the explanation video of PrepTest 1 - Section 2 - Game 1 vs Game 4)?

Best,

Josh

deleted

I have a question regarding a potential "Most strongly supported" question that may have an answer choice with the inclusion of "always". For an example: Lets say that in a stimulus, it reads "I eat pies on Wednesdays." If one of the answer choices was-- I "always" eat pies on Wednesdays, would that be correct? Even if it "always" is not stated in the stimulus, should that be implied through appropriate reasoning?

Hi all, I need your advice on how to better focus and concentrate while I'm studying and taking PTs. I have the CC down, I understand the material, and my timing is good for the most part (I'm able to look at every question in the 35 minutes). However, I have trouble focusing while I'm reading RC passages and LR stimuli and I find myself having to reread because I wasn't paying attention. I have no idea how to make myself concentrate better on the task at hand. Any suggestions are much appreciated!

Is anyone else familiar with JY's suggestion of turning weakening questions into resolve questions (essentially reading all the premises and negating the conclusion in the stimulus, ultimately creating a paradox)? I have a lot of trouble with weakening questions, but when I turn them into resolve questions they seem so much easier to solve. Is this a method that I should adapt or could it become detrimental?

When it comes to a hard question on LR, do you actually just leave it blank and move on, or do you take an educated guess and flag it? if you do leave it blank, how do you decide when to skip? After reading through a certain amount of times or simply just feeling confused after reading the stimulus.

Side note: does anyone know if you can actually flag questions on the real LSAT? Or is that just a feature of the we have on 7sage

Thanks in advance!

can we deal with necessary assumption Q as Must Be True Question?

Hey everyone, I got this question incorrect during a timed run yesterday because I was trying to find a sufficient assumption when for a strengthen question lol.

Oh well, I'm curious as to whether you all think that this question can be definitively declared a sufficient assumption or if it is up for debate; my answer is that the question hinges on your interpretation of the modifier "mostly" in the phrase "mostly native trees and shrubs" and also whether or not a probabilistic outcome can be valid if it is most likely (I have no clue about this)..

Premises: 1) Master plan calls for all trees to be NATIVE and NOT LARGE

2) Three Rivers Nursery sells MOSTLY NATIVE TREES AND SHRUBS

Conclusion: Trees from Three Rivers Nursery is PROBABLY consistent with Master Plan

(E) Strengthens the argument because if the trees are NOT LARGE then (the only other stipulation), then we are probably in the clear

Now that I've had some more time to stare at this, I'm curious though what exactly the phrase MOSTLY NATIVE TREES AND SHRUBS means; I see two or three possible interpretations 1) Three Rivers Nursery sells only trees and shrubs, the majority of which are native to the area (explicitly leaves open the possibility that some trees - potentially the ones that were donated - are not native to the area); 2) Three Rivers Nursery sells only native trees and native shrubs as well as other items (perhaps gardening supplies?) or 3) Three Rivers Nursery sells MOSTLY NATIVE TREES (this is 70% of their business for example) and the rest (30%) is shrubs.

If we accept the 1st interpretation then there is a strong case to me that (E) is a strengthening answer choice. Because there is a possibility that the not large trees that were donated were also not native; but of course this is what a strengthen answer choice does is to increase (by any amount) the support for the conclusion. The one caveat to this is that the conclusion is probabilistic so could this actually be a valid argument so to speak? [This is the definition I opted for during the timed run (and as I mentioned before had gotten me turned around because I got lost in thinking it was a SA and had not contemplated the ramifications of a probabilistic outcome being potentially valid)].

If we accept the 2nd interpretation then my stance is that (E) is a sufficient assumption answer choice because we know the trees are NATIVE and NOT LARGE. If we accept the 3rd interpretation then (E) is also a sufficient assumption answer as well for the same reasoning.

Anyways, what are your thoughts?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-74-section-4-question-03/

Can anyone explain why C would be incorrect, and why A would instead be the correct AC?

Backpacker is planning to hike in a national forest. She will hike three or more of the following seven trails: Laurel, Maple, Oak, Poplar, Spruce, Tupelo, and Willow. She will not hike on any other trails. The choice of trails for her hike is constrained by the following conditions:

If she hikes Laurel, she must also hike Oak and Poplar.

If she hikes Tupelo, she must also hike Spruce and Willow.

If she hikes Willow, she can hike neither Maple nor Oak.

End of reading passage.

I have a question regarding the use of word "similar" or "related" in strengthen and weaken choices. For an example, if a stimulus portrays the argument that Seals from the Baltics were more susceptible to disease from pollutants than those not from the Baltics. If an answer choice option stated that: A SIMILAR animal to the seal from the Baltic Seaalso was more susceptible disease from pollutants than those that are not from the Baltic Sea.......... would that strengthen the argument? Or if an answer choice stated, a RELATED animal to the seal from the Baltic Sea also was more susceptible disease from pollutants than those that are not from the Baltic Sea... would that strengthen the argument as well?