Hi All. I am curious to know some techniques or strategies on how people have been studying. Are you doing ALL the problem sets directly after the lessons? For example for MSS questions, are you doing all the problem sets in a row? Saving some for later days? What have you found helpful in regards to this? I hear from people the best way to get better is to continue to do problems; However, my worry is that by the time I get to the Logic Games or reading comprehension, I would have already completed all the problem sets for the logical reasoning. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts. Thank you.

Anyone have strategies for RC anxiety? I was averaging around -4 for months until today when I went -12 on PT 79. I noticed my anxiety was through the roof by the end of the section and what worries me is that I didn't really notice until after the section was over. I knew I spent too much time on a pretty easy opening passage and I think I let that get to me. For some reason this seems to only happen with RC. I went -1 and -0 on LR that same test so I know I wasn't just "having a bad day". I'm thinking maybe because I usually finish the other sections with some time to spare, I'm not stressing out about the time crunch. But the amount of time we're supposed to spend on easy passages vs hard ones still seems so vague to me.

I got this question correct but have no idea why C is the correct answer. Can someone explain?

Admin note: edited title

Hey Peeps,

So I'm currently working my way through the core curriculum, albeit hella slowly!

I was just wondering what are some of your thoughts on following your intuition when answering logical reasoning questions versus mapping/writing everything (conditional statements, necessary conditions, sufficient conditions, etc.) out?

I imagine using one's intuition is much faster but of course sometimes intuition can fail you.

So I got this correct, but only on the basis that I knew this was a medium leveled question. I cannot fully eliminate A and need additional help.

When I read this my initial instinct was to say how do we know that 62% is representative. Again, after knowing this was a medium level questioned I felt that A was too easy to fall for and I re-read the stimulus and saw it mentioned that it wanted to increase readership. With that this is what followed:

A - Could not eliminate

B - So what that other journals have done this? We just care about this journal and what they are doing.

C - I choose this because out of the other answers this felt like it mentioned both that representative discrepancy mentioned AND the want for the increased readership. However, I am still not entirely confident in this answer choice

D - So what about the cost?

E - So what?

#help

I am just really confused of why the right answer is B.

My thought process was this:

C: It is advisable for businesses to implement such variations.

Why? because of all the information above. When I read this I thought there was an assumption between all businesses having a standard software. Writing this out, I see why this is wrong, but I also do not see why B would strengthen this.

Answers the way I saw them:

A: This is right. In my head this reinforced the assumption I thought I saw

B: So what? We never mentioned cost

C: Again, money is never mentioned. But also, it was mentioned that they were compatible. So this is pointless

D - This might weaken the argument b/c even if we fix one issue, there is another issue anyway. Also, what are destructive computer programs?

E: So what? These businesses want to do that. Even if they do not, it does not strengthen anything

#help

Hey all, I have roughly a month to go until the June LSAT, and I need to brush up on my conditional reasoning fundamentals from the ground up, as it relates to Logic Games. I've tried to start with intro to grouping games but have found his list of conditional statements and their implied conditional relationships incomprehensible. Which videos should I begin with to have a solid foundation for understanding conditionality in situations like grouping games?

Thanks!

Hello,

I downloaded the 7Sage app with the 35 minute Test Proctor. I have an accommodation for the test, and was wondering if the proctor be adjusted to 53 minutes? Thanks for your help in advance.

In one of the CC lessons an individual by the username "CharlesOak" asks a very interesting question regarding the BR method that sadly did not garner a reply. So, here's to hoping that it will be seen and answered here !

"For the Diagnostic test should we complete it by section doing BR or should we take the full test first and then do our review? I assume we should take it by section with timed conditions and BR, instead of actually doing the whole thing in one sitting and later on reviewing. I just wanted to confirm."

Basically, when working on LR,or other specific sections, do we take timed sections individual from the other sections, or, do we take the entirety of the test every single time.

Currently just starting my studying and am initially going to tackle my studying systematically---learning the foundational principle(s) for each individual section before taking them along side each-other. I'm not completely sure if this is the correct way about going about it, but it is my study style! That being said, I'm all ears (I guess eyes) and more than willing to listen (err, i guess see) any recommendations or tips for studying :)

P.s. I realise there are several similar posts, but, none that quite ask what I am asking. In essence, just to beat the metaphorical dead horse here, I want to attack particular parts of the test. Much like a sprinter will work solely on their start--tracking the time it takes them to react etc. to the starting pistol---What I am unsure about is whether the results I develop/times I achieve while doing timed individual sections separate from others will translate when I begin taking the entire test. In theory, I do not see why it wouldn't, but I am no expert.

Hi. Im studying for the June LSAT and (like most people) am having trouble with SE questions. While watching on of JY's game explanation videos for PT 66 and noticing some differences in they way he set up his board and they way I set up mine, I thought of a potential strategy that may or may not be good and was hoping to get some feedback from others about what they might think of it.

Normally, I have not bothered to even try to answer SE questions on timed PT's and had adhered to this in this case (PT 66, section 3, Q11). However, upon my first reworking of the game I attempted it and actually found it to be relatively easy. The key was that (unlike JY's) my boards had been split on the node of the exact inference that was being substituted. Having these relevant sub-game boards already at my disposal saved me the time and trouble of possibly splitting on that inference for the question, and were extremely helpful in the knock out/sneak in process. Perhaps more importantly, having already worked the game and questions with an understanding of that relevant rule as the primary determinant of the possible worlds of the game had instilled me with a deep understanding of how that rule functioned in the creation of worlds by the time I came to the final question and allowed me to quickly and confidently asses the answer choices.

The potential strategy I am putting up for discussion is whether or not it could be helpful to, at the start of each new game, check the final question of that game to see if it is SE. If it is, then might the rule that is being replaced within it be the rule that implies the key inference along which you should strongly consider splitting your board? I feel as if this step could easily be added to the checklist of things to do at the start of each game and could be extremely beneficial. I am not suggesting a rigid following of this and I am sure that in some cases it is best to split along nodes that are not mentioned in SE questions. However, after looking through some past games that include SE questions, it seems to me that these games are often structured towards building an understanding of the inferences created by the rule being replaced, an understanding that must be funneled into the last Q for a final comprehensive test. At the very least, if it doesn't make since to split along the replaced rule, knowing the SE Q is coming, and having the functioning of the rule in the back of your head as you work through the Q's, might be very helpful.

Cakes that do not taste good do not contain the right amount of flour.

Is it Cake not taste good--> /contain the right amount of flour?

so i'm a junior in college and i'm going home for the summer and just devoting my time to studying for the LSAT (full time). so i was wondering what the best way to study. like should i study 35-40 hours a week? or take my time getting through the core curriculum and then do practice tests? i'm not sure how to plan my schedule to finish on time and have the most effective way of studying (i did really bad on my diagnostic i got in the 130s so i have a lot of work to do). but yeah if anyone could help me figure out the best way to study that would be great!

I'm taking the July 2019 Test, and I'm looking for a study partner in Washington DC. We can help each other review problems and questions together. If you're interested, kindly message me and we can coordinate. I'm quite flexible and eager to teach and learn.

Hi, I am having trouble understanding why (B) MBT. I understand why the other answer choices are bad. But I have no idea why (B) is the correct answer. It seems to me that (B) CBT -- not MBT.

My diagram is as follows:

Old Precept: Inviting & Functional --> unobtrusive

New Precept: Inviting & Functional --> /unobtrusive

Modern Architects --> Strong Personality --> /Functional

So going by the new precept, I do not see how it logically follows that Modern Architects --> Strong Personality --> /unobtrusive.

Admin note: edited title

I know this question is pretty old but I am trying to improve on Flaw questions. Could anyone explain why ACA is the correct answer? It seems that the argument is addressing both the dating of wills and the superseding of previous wills thus addressing the entire problem previously discussed. Is the problem, however, that the argument treats this smaller solution to a minor problem of a much bigger problem, as a solution to that much bigger problem? I choose ACB so this question definitely tripped me up. Thanks!

Hello,

I have trouble seeing if something is actually required, even after applying the negation test and asking myself if the AC is giving more than is required, or fills the gap and is not actually required. If anything, I tend to see that the Negation Test wrecks the argument more often that I should, and wrongly choose that one thing that seems seemingly unrelated but I thought would wreck the argument.

Ex) Because we locked the door, no one can break into our house

A. Required: there are no other ways to break into the house

B. Required: one cannot break into the house going through the chimney

C. Not required: None of the windows can be opened

D. Not required: The door is the only way in and out of the house, and the lock is impenetrable.

I see why A and B is required. But I don't really see why C are D are not. I can see why D offers information that is extra, "and the lock is impenetrable", but why is C not required? Negation for C: Some of the windows can be opened. Doesn't that wreck the argument? Someone can break in now. What is the difference between C and B?

Another example:

When exercising the muscles in one's back, it is important to maintain a healthy back, to exercise the muscles on opposite sides of the spine equally. After all, balanced muscle development is needed to maintain a healthy back, since the muscles on opposite sides of the spine must pull equally in opposing directions to keep the back in proper alignment and protect the spine.

Which of the following is an assumption required by the argument?

A. Muscles on opposite sides of the spine that are equally well developed will be enough to keep the back in proper alignment.

B. Exercising the muscles on opposite sides of the spine unequally tends to lead to unbalanced muscle development.

Equally exercise muscles->pull in equal directions->healthy back.

I chose A. Negation: Muscles on opposite sides of the spine that are equally well developed WILL NOT be enough to keep the back in proper alignment. I know stating something is important doesn't mean that it alone will be sufficient to produce the outcome, but it seems to wreck the idea that this is important to do (conclusion). I know it's not 100%, but neither is B to me.

I eliminated B immediately glossing over it because we are talking about spines that are exercised equally, not unequally. Negation: Exercising the muscles on opposite sides of the spine unequally DOES NOT tend to lead to unbalanced muscle development. It wrecks the idea that exercising both sides equally is important. Why do I have to exercise both sides of my back equally if when I am exercising them unequally, it doesn't produce unbalanced muscle development anyway? But how is this a better answer that A? If anything I think it is more out of scope than A. We aren't specifically talking about spines that are not exercised unequally or unbalanced muscle development. Yeah, not exercising both sides equally may not produce the outcome of unbalanced muscle development, but I am not trying to avoid unbalanced muscle development, I am trying to fulfill balanced muscle development. What is not necessary to produce an outcome doesn't mean it should be neglected!

I hate "understanding" the questions only after the fact. I want to really understand how to tackle these types of questions.

Does anyone know any tips/tricks/insights that will help with other questions like these onward?

THANK YOU :)

What's the difference between AC "D" and "E"?

Admin note: edited title

Just took my first digital lsat prep test and my score suffered greatly because i have trouble reading from the tablet and overall just underlining and highlighting was difficult from my ipad. Anyone else have a similar issue?

I’ve been focusing on NA/SA questions for the last two weeks, and took another PT,

Only to get an exactly same score:)

I’m happy with getting all NA/SA questions right, but now I’m getting flaw questions wrong.

Accuracy dropped to 43%.

I know I’ll work on flaw questions, but is there something I’m missing? Should I work on different types of questions while working on my weaknesses? Could there possibly be a correlation in learning more things about NA types that makes me weaker with flaw questions? It felt somehow harder to predict flaw question answers during the most recent PT.

Should I be doing timed LR sections from like 40s and 50s because I find that when I take it timed? I want to take the July test for sure, so I am trying to do evens PTS 60s through now by then.

I sometimes get like -9, but BR is just -2 or -3. I am trying to improve my LR score because I'm stuck in the 160s, but in BR I get like 170-175.What suggestions do you guys have?

I always take too much time on the first half of the section and rush to the second time. I've taken 10 preptests so far, and 7 of which I have at least one LR section I couldn't finish on time. Is that common?

It's always questions that are worded too long that trips me up, and also I always (try) eliminate all the wrong answers when I take them. Could that be the reason as to why it's taking me so long?

Hello everyone,

I am planning to take the LSAT in South Korea for the upcoming cycle. I was hoping to take it between sep~nov.

BUT, the official LSAC website only indicates that the 2019 test dates in Asia are Sunday, March 31, 2019 & Sunday, June 23, 2019. Since today is April 28, that only leaves the June 23 option.

Is this going to be only time I can take the test in Asia??? or will there be more releases of dates in the near future?

Thanks in advance!

Hi guys,

Please help if you can. The question is filled with technical terms, which I know that I should just replace it. But then, the answer choices put in more of those terms and I literally felt like my brain just had blown up after doing this one single question.

But in any case, I have some questions. Please help and it may help to strengthen your ability too because the question I guess is not an easy one.

When it comes to this kind of questions, what is your approach in terms of understanding what this question is saying?

When it comes to the answer choices, with some fuzzy knowledge of what had just happened, how do you choice the correct one? For example, please take a look at answer choice C. The state of my brain was already blown up after reading and analyzing the stimulus and this term "cerebrospinal fluid" gets throw in. Naturally I picked it with the hope that JY will say in the video "we don't know that". I mean where did the stimulus say about fluids? Isn't it about some stuff attacking some other stuff.

How do you understand answer choice A?

In the end of all the elimination, I have A & C left. And I finally eliminated A, the correct answer. My brain process went like the following:

It says "Gamma interferon stops white blood cells from producing myelin-destroying compounds". But wait, white blood cell produce myelin? What is this dash doing here? What does destroying compounds mean? Isn't the problem that white blood cell is killing the myelin instead of producing it? Does Gamma stop white blood cell? All I know is that Gamma doesn't work.

In the end, I am left with an answer choice A that I could hardly understand and answer choice C with a term" spinal fluid". So I guessed for C.

Please let me know how you would approach the problem and how your mind works when you are reading this kind of passage which is filled with technical terms and your approach to answer choice A & C.

Thanks in advance.

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-35-section-4-question-22/

I foolproofed all the games in the core curriculum (including the problem sets included with the starter package). Afterwards, I took PT 37 and was able to solve 2 out of 4 games in the section, which was an improvement from being able to solve a total of zero games. Next, I completed the RC section of the CC, and my LG skills have gotten rusty to the point where I can barely solve one out of 4 games in the section.

I'm not sure whether I should foolproof the games in the CC again, or foolproof the games in Pt's 19-35 (I can't seem to find the PT book for 1-19). Appreciate any advice with this. Pretty anxious cause I'm signed up for June, and I seem to completely suck at games.

So on question 12 JY mentioned a bi conditional because there was a /S-->H, /H-->S, and also a S-->/H, and a H-->/S. However, to get the first set of conditionals, the original chain was /S-->J-->H. Can you simply say that this= /S-->H? I wasn't aware that you could do this. In a conditional chain don't you need all the elements? Or can you just remove the J and write this as another separate statement? This doesn't make sense to me

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-33-section-4-game-2/