Anyone have a comprehensive list which they use to review/drill which question type is an argument we must look for vs not an argument...etc

So I did a little experiment and did 3 questions from each Logical Reasoning stem and found that no matter how hard I try I keep getting Strengthening, Weakening, and Necessary Assumption questions wrong. It is probably my weakest LR family type I don't know if my brain just is not smart enough for the LSAT or it's because there is something off with my reasoning skills, but even after going over CC in this area I can't seem to get questions from the Assumption family correct no matter how hard I try.

Any tips?

Thank you 7Sage !

I have no idea why the answer is E. I chose C. Can someone please explain why E is right?

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-88-section-2-question-21/

Hello fellow sagers, I have recently finished the CC and now onto drilling and correcting and that whole process. I just took PT36 after completing CC as some suggested and I want to learn some strategies that will get the most out of reviewing. Planning on writing for April 2020

I like the BR method but had a question on how to approach review after BR, particularly for LR. The way I am going about it now is that I consolidate all the High urgency questions, tell myself why I though the answer was right then watch the explanation video.

Is this a good way to go about it? Any advice on strategy that'll truly improve understanding or anything I should add to my process that you find helpful?

I am unsure of what the problem is. I believe it may be an insufficient ability to translate English into Lawgic. Often times the ones I seem to get correct, my English---->Lawgic translation is incorrect.

I would like to continue through the course and just keep this weakness in the back of my mind. But I also would not like to do that at my own detriment. My questions are as follows:

Where can I go to practice these English ----> Lawgic translations without wasting the precious resources of actual problem sets.

Can I just go through the rest of the course while working on that and then return the MBT/SA questions at a later date?

Hi all. Sorry if this is something JY has directly spoken to in lessons, as I just have a free account here. But I was wondering: would it be safe to say that in any in/out game with a biconditional that says two elements can never be together, it’ll be worthwhile to create multiple game boards?

I just took PT 83 and missed a great opportunity to split the third game along the N/R biconditional that the rules create, and I’m wondering if I could have just automatically assumed it was worthwhile to split once I found that biconditional. Thanks!

Hi,

What are the best strategies for high scorers on reading comprehension with the new digital format? On paper with minimal underlining, I was averaging about -3 wrong per RC section. I read the powerscore rc bible a few months ago and generally did not find their viewstamp analysis to be particularly useful. With playing around with the electronic underlining and highlighting features, I think I will just never use them as they are more finicky than useful. I just finished the core curriculum for logic games and logical reasoning, so I will start the reading section of the curriculum now. Does the 7sage cc on reading still apply? Is it worthwhile? What changes with switch to tablet? Any other tips or advice on how to approach the reading comprehension on new format?

Thanks for the help!

I always think this now when doing LR questions when the answer choices are completely irrelevant to the question.

I've been wondering about a different approach to answering the questions in LR sections, in hopes of improving time and accuracy....has anyone heard of an approach where you would answers the LR questions by the type of question (MP, MSS, etc) instead of numerical order? For example, answering all of the MP questions first then tackling all of the MSS question and so on. Instead of jumping our minds from one type of question to another, could it help to tackle all the same type of questions together and then move on? Thoughts?

Hi,

Can anyone help explain why the answer here is E instead of C? I understand why A,B, and D are wrong, but I just don't understand why C is wrong. I felt the main idea of the passage was that we need to reform the way we rehabilitate child criminals, which seemed to me to be a form of cooperation between criminologists and law enforcement (since creating such policy would be a form of law enforcement finally acting on the criminologists' findings).

Any #help would be appreciated!

Thanks!

I'm confused by the question stem here:

The information above provides the LEAST support for which one of the following?

When I read the explanation, it said this is a MBT question. I thought this was a MBT EXCEPT question stem.

https://forum.powerscore.com/lsat/viewtopic.php?t=9232

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-26-section-3-question-20/

Hey 7sagers,

Right now in the -1 to -0 range in LG (Full proofed 30 - 60). However, the substitution LG question stem in the 60+ test seems to get me. Do folks have any recommendations on how to attack it? Any patterns they see? Any book recommendations to read on this?

Thanks for the advice in advance.... :)

Hi,

The answer for this question is B. I understand why B is right, but I was not able to fully eliminate why D is wrong (I understand why A, C, and E are wrong). The reason why I am still not sure why D is wrong is because D states that, "the highER costs..." thus implying that brand-name drugs are more expensive than generic drugs and thus supporting the conclusion of the passage (that generic drugs costs less but are just as good as brand-name drugs).

Any #help would be appreciated!

Thanks!

Hey folks,

I've been studying for the LSAT for quite a long time now, and while my accuracy has improved, I still find myself missing hard questions—4/5 stars. There isn't a question type pattern or anything when the difficulty rises, I tend to miss the question. Do you have any tips, ideas, tricks, or anything that could help me get better when dealing with difficult questions?

Cheers,

Hey all, need some help on some conditional logic.

31.3.18. It is a match the pattern of reasoning argument.

The stimulus:

It is impossible to do science without measuring. It is impossible to measure without having first selected units of measurement. Hence science is arbitrary, since the selection of units is always arbitrary.

Now, the argument and correct answer is easy to spot. However, there is a subtle flaw (yes, I know, it is a match question-but just analyzing the flaw for practice):

The form of argument

Therefore, Science is arbitrary

The flaw is that the author assumes a quality (arbitrary) is applied to all of science, because something necessary for science (selecting units) has that quality...

But sometimes it is not clear when a ‘quality’ like being arbitrary, is a necessary condition or not. The language “selecting units is always arbitrary” seems to imply a conditional relationship: If Selecting units, then arbitrary because of the word “always”.

How do we know that given language like always or everytime (usually a sufficient trigger) is not introducing a necessary condition? Or is it conditional, but for the fact that we say arbitrary is a necessary aspect of science we are going too far as to say that all of science is arbitrary? Or just that when we do science a part of that will be necessarily arbitrary.

It seems that sometimes a quality can be a conditional relationship:

If you’re tall then you’re good at basketball. Or tall people are always good at basketball.

**If it is conditional, then we have:

therefore,

science then arbitrary

And still have a flaw even though the conditional logic lines up? (Valid)

Is it a context issue? Is it an issue where I’m over applying the conditional language cues, but that there is not actually a conditional relationship?

Very much would appreciate any input.

Thanks!

#help This question gave me trouble but I think I understand now. Here's my explanation, please let me know if it's right.

Conclusion: early detection of fire is no more likely now than it was 10 years ago

Premise1: 10 years ago 30% of houses had detectors, now 45% do

Premise2: but over half detectors are either inoperable or don't have batteries.

I chose A which says "15% of detectors were installed over the last 10 years." This isn't a trigger for the conclusion, and it doesn't connect the dots, because this premise just doesn't lead the premises any closer to the conclusion. If we said "All detectors installed in the last 10 years, which accounts for 15% total, are all defected or inoperable" this would guarantee the conclusion. This would allow us to say that indeed even though there are more detectors total, early detection is still equally likely as it was 10 years ago.

D makes sense now but I eliminated it because it doesn't need to be that the detectors are inoperable (which is 1 explanation of the 2), they could just have no batteries (the 2nd of the 2 explanations). I thought "D doesn't need to be true, there could be an alternate explanation." However, this explanation, despite the existence of other explanations, does connect the dots between the premises and the conclusion. Now we could say we have more detectors overall, but the proportion of inoperable detectors increased a lot so now the early detection rate is the exact same.

A parallel argument would be "We installed 15% more security cameras than a year ago but vandalism rates are the same. This is because the proportion of working security cameras dropped over the last year. As a result, roughly the same amount of security cameras were of use, and we weren't able to prevent more vandalism despite having more cameras."

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

Hi,

Would anyone be able to explain why the answer here is B instead of E? I couldn't find any direct evidence showing how E is wrong

#help

Thanks!

Hello 7Sagers,

I was wondering if anyone could help me clear up some fogginess im experiencing while drilling LR?

So i am aware i must understand what the stimulus is saying as well as be able to identify the conclusion and premises. However, im having the hardest time retaining the information when i get to the answer choices. I know what the stimulus is saying most of the time and i go to the answer choices with confidence. However, i notice i am begining to get problems wrong that have more condeluded stimuli.

How do i keep the conclusion and premises in my head clear while trying out different answer choices? I feel i get what the premises and conclusion is for the stimulus but when i try to recall it i have to say it a couple of times to remember it so i wont forget when moving to the answer choices.

What do you all do?

By way of background, I've taken the LSAT once (January of 2020). I've finished the core curriculum and I have worked through probably 40 practice tests' worth of logic games. I've worked through these games at least twice and have watched the JY explanation videos to understand how to correctly solve any that gave me issues.

With all of that said, I'm still not scoring how I'd like to on the section (I usually hover around -4 but it can go up to -7 on a tough section). LG is also the only thing holding me back from scoring in the 170s which is what I'm aiming for in my June 2020 retake.

I definitely think a part of the issue is psychological. If I encounter a game that catches me off-guard, I freeze up. I start to feel sort of warm, like the blood is rushing to my head, and I start to make very basic mistakes, such as mislabeling a simple sequencing rule-that I otherwise would label correctly. Often, I'll blind review games in which this occurred, and I'll get every or most questions correct.

I'm sort of at a loss on what to do to improve. One thing I have not tried is working through a book such as the Powerscore Logic Games Bible.

Any advice on how to practically improve, or how to sort this this mental barrier, would be much appreciated!

I chose (E). I had thought that the discrepancy was how is it that a restaurant with worse food could be more popular. Assuming this is the discrepancy, would (E) not justify the conclusion? We are told Traintrack has a better location and this brings in customers, but there is still a gap: how is better location enough to compensate for having worse food? (E) tells how, food is irrelevant to the popularity of a restaurant. But from what I got from the explanation is that the actual discrepancy the question wants us to focus on is how is it that a more popular restaurant offers worse food? Did I just miss what the question was truly asking for?

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-82-section-4-question-21/

So I've been struggling with logic games, and this doesn't change that, BUT I think things are slightly less bad than I'd thought:

I've been stressing about my performance on LG sections given a three-star difficulty rating by 7sage. I've been thinking, "ugh, this is just on the average LG section, which, given that tests have been getting harder, will likely be easier than whatever's on my actual test." But when I checked this out, I realized that of the PTs since #80, only ONE has gotten a rating higher than three stars! (#88, a 5-star section)

So obviously, this doesn't mean that my test's LG section is gonna be easy, or even that it won't be the hardest I've ever taken. But it does mean that 3-star LG sections are around as hard as they generally have been, of late.

I'm at the NA section of the core curriculum (almost done the problem sets) and so far these are the hardest question type for me.

What are some general tips/tricks you guys use to get the questions right (esp. hard questions)? I'm looking for a general rule or mindset to always have in mind as I do the questions to try and get them right.

Should I be foolproofing the games that are part of the core curriculum or should I only start foolproofing games when I finish the cc and start drilling and taking practice tests?

Thanks

Hey everyone! I'm currently looking to improve my RC score - I get average 8-9 wrong in the section and would really like to see that number get lower. I've

Hi everyone! I've been preparing since the middle of December for the April administration. I've spent most of that time learning and drilling the fundamentals (mostly from the trainer) before getting into full PTs, so I've only taken 9 of those so far.

Recently, I've been getting -2 to -5 overall (not per section) on LR and averaging about -3.5, but I just took PT 73 and only got 1 wrong. Overall I feel good about the questions, although I work much more intuitively than by following the methods strictly and am not 100% confident on at least a couple per section. I've heard great things about Loophole, but I'm a little worried that a new approach will hurt my performance at this level and I won't be able to correct in time for the April test.

I'm wondering if I should work through Loophole or just keep practicing, review better and see if I can get the last couple of questions that way.

Has anyone been in the same position? Did adjusting your approach hurt your score?

Thanks!