Discussions

LSAT

New post

209 posts in the last 30 days

TRUST THAT YOU CAN REMEMBER THE INFERENCES.

At times, when foolproofing a game and watching the explanation video, I get overwhelmed. I start thinking that there is no way I can reproduce the inferences that are detailed in this 15-20 minute video. I might even convince myself that I need to find an easier way to solve the game other than J.Y's explanation (like look for a split that no one has found yet, not always a bad thing obviously).

Then I decided I was just going to watch the explanation video and attempt the game immediately. Got both of the new games I did today within the target time on only my second attempts. What I learned from this is, that sometimes it's hard to realize that you actually DO remember the inferences, and WILL be able to recall them when tested on whether you can make the inference. Your mind is probably smarter than you think, so give it a little credit.

1

Since the LSAC says we have the option to cancel our scores after we see it, and also to retake it at a later date free of charge, I'm definitely leaning towards taking the July LSAT. However, I was wondering if those rules applied for those who get paper instead of digital on the actual exam day. The website doesn't differentiate at any point, but I was just curious if anyone knew for sure.

0

I am not understanding the key concept of "only if/only when/only where" and how they are not biconditionals. Can someone help?

take this sentence:

"Lagitha performs fifth only if Norton performs third."

from the rules, I understand the translation to be:

L=5--------->N=3

BUT i don't understand for the life of me why. They seem to be biconditional.

As in: "Lagitha can perform anytime she wants unless norton is third, and in that case, she must be 5th." Confirming the necessary in this case, actually confirms the sufficient.

It seems to me that the english sentence

"If Lagitha performs 5, norton performs 3" has an entirely different meaning.

I thought i could just muddle through not understanding this, but now "only if" comes up all over logic games. I have tried just memorizing the rule, but it would be so much better to actually understand it. I have gone over all the lessons from this group, and I still don't get it. I'd really appreciate any advice.

0

Hey there! Hope everyone is doing well in their LSAT studies!

I stumbled upon a question that stated "otherwise" within the answer choices. (for reference: PT 63 Section 1 #21) J.Y. noted that otherwise means "or, and not both" which is a biconditional, however, I'm having trouble distinguishing this from "not otherwise"

If someone can kindly look over the two statements I have provided below, one with otherwise & the other with not otherwise.

Examples:

If a class involves science work, the class will be conducted in a laboratory; otherwise, it will be conducted in a normal room.

If a class involves science work, the class will be conducted in a laboratory or a normal room, but not otherwise.

Are these both the same in conditional logic? Laboratory (--) Normal room.

Also, would someone be able to provide an example that would likely be a rule on a logic game with those terms?

Thank you!

0

I'm writing this post in the hope that it will help me remember to follow my own advice, and perhaps help others as well in the process.

Here's my Foolproofing tip (mostly geared at people relatively new to Foolproofing):

  • SLOWER IS FASTER. Since one of the goals of foolproofing a game is solving the game within the target time, it's very tempting to think you need to rush things and that you will solve the game fastest by actively trying to go fast. Surprisingly, I find that when I give myself all the time I need, THAT is when I end up finishing the game within time. It's weird, because after completing the game I actually think that I went overtime, and lo and behold it's my record fastest time.

    • I think this works for two reasons: 1. A calm mind works WAY better. So even though you may be going slower (less thoughts, not scribbling frantically) you're actually being much more efficient and deliberate. 2. Even if you don't complete the game within the target time this time around, by going slower you are giving yourself a chance to really understand and remember the inferences (it's much easier to remember things you understand, vs. rote memorization) thus giving you the best chance to solve the game quickly on the next go around.

    P.S. In addition, I think this principle applies to LSAT studying in general. It's often very tempting to think that we can make ourselves cover more ground, understand things quicker, complete more prep-tests etc., through rushing. Unfortunately, the anxiety that comes with rushing deeply diminishes one's ability to focus and learn efficiently.

    In conclusion: Anxiety while studying or around studying is NOT a necessary component for LSAT success, and is possibly a sufficient condition for failure in certain cases.

    0

    Hello!

    I was looking for some insight as to what I am doing wrong. I have read all of the Bible books and perform very well with respect to time and accuracy. Yet whenever I do an exam, I have trouble maintaining that same performance. It struggle with improving my score but I continuously do well on all of my practice. Do you have any suggestions as to what I can do? I am aware that the time constraints are a factor but it doesn’t make sense as to why I perform well even when I do timed sections but still bomb my practice tests.

    I look forward to hearing from you all!

    0

    Hi all,

    I’ve taken the LSAT twice now - once in Sept. 2018 and again in Nov. 2018 - and both times my experimental section was LG. In each of the experimental LG were games containing multiple (or even exclusively, in one game) rules that combined sequencing rules (such as A — B or [AB]) with conditionals packed into them.

    For example: (A — B ) —> (C — D)

    For whatever reason, I found that having multiple rules in a single game like that to be very difficult to conceptualize and make quick inferences. I’m worried that I may run into one for March or June given they’ve been on separate experimental sections twice now. While I’m fairly experienced in LG, I haven’t taken every section out there. Would any of you happen to know if there are games with rules like this and which PTs they’re on? I’m having trouble off the top of my head. Thanks so much for any help!

    0

    I've repeatedly watched the lesson titled "Advanced: Negate All Statements" and in the video the statement used is:

    "All cats are pretentious"

    JY states there isn't a word that is a direct opposite of "all" so he uses "some... not..." to directly contradict the statement into:

    "Some cats are not pretentious"

    .

    Here's my problem with this.

    If "some" means at least one but not all. How is it that the logical opposite of "All cats are pretentious" is "Some cats are not pretentious"??

    If we're dealing with the group "cat" and "things that are not pretentious" wouldn't the statement "some cars are not pretentious" leaves the possibility that ZERO cats are not pretentious? Which directly contradicts the definition of some which is at LEAST one but not all?

    I'm confused to why he doesn't just use "not all" as the contradiction to "all" which would leave the range (0-99) which would make things simpler by not directly going against the definition of "some"

    0
    User Avatar
    •

    Thursday, Mar 7, 2019

    wbrasic97291

    LG Troubles

    So I finished the curriculum a little over a month ago and have just started fool proofing LG 1-35 using Pacifico's method. My problem is that for most of the games I have come across thus far I have a lot of trouble with them at the start. So since I don't really know how to approach it I stop and go to JY's video and I immediately understand it after he sets up the game board. So I guess my question is how do I eliminate that gap between having no idea how to approach the game to completely understanding it after watching the set-up.

    Any help is greatly appreciated!

    Thanks,

    Will

    0
    User Avatar
    •

    Wednesday, Mar 6, 2019

    folso102647

    Tips for LR?

    Hi everyone --

    I'm averaging around 158 on my 5 most recent practice tests right now and really want to break 160's consistently! I'm averaging around -7 on LR sections, and not really seeing a trend as to missed question types. I feel like I have the foundation/CC down pretty well and am running into over confidence errors a lot of the time.

    Should I be drilling LR sections instead of taking full PT's? Or should I go through CC again? I've also read the LSAT trainer. I just feel a little stuck! Would love to be getting -3/-4 consistently...

    Anyone else run into this problem and overcome it?

    1

    For me, taking the Logical Reasoning and Reading sections under timed condition makes a lot of sense. Since I have a bad habit of taking my sweet time, and this will train me to read faster, etc.. However, I am really struggling with doing the game section on time. If I sit there and take as much time as I need, I actually do kind of well. However, if I have to do it under time, I will end up guessing most of my answers.

    So, my question is: should I practice logic games for my prep tests at the time I'm comfortable at, and then work on my speed?

    Or, should I always take it the first time under timed condition?

    Thank y'all so much for your time,

    Paul

    0

    The section I have the most trouble on is Logic Games, Ive drilled and fool proofed many many games but I still end up missing around 5-7 questions on preptests. If I can improve on my LG I will be borderline at 170. I was wondering if any 7sagers, that score high on the LG sections, can provide any tips and/or insight on how they study or approach LG sections. Thank you in advance!!

    0

    Hey guys,

    I'm having trouble understanding question 8 from PT4 section 1. I diagrammed it:

    -PWP ---> -GLS and realized that the passage makes an illegal reverse. It should have been GLS ---> PWP (the contrapositive) instead of PWP---> GLS. However, even with that in mind, I wasn't able to find the right answer. Now, I don't understand why D is the right answer. Can someone please help me?

    Cheers!

    0

    Hello,

    I am unable to understand lines 28-36.

    I cannot understand what the author means by concentrating its resources on areas brought inadvertently within the scope. What does he mean by concentrating resources? Does he mean that he would enforce the law on those for whom it wasn't intended? Or does he mean that the agency would spend resources to avoid prosecuting innocent people who were inadvertently brought within the scope of the law?

    I'm unsure if the author is saying that capricious enforcement seems unlikely or something else is unlikely.

    Thank you so much.

    Admin note: edited title

    https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-68-section-1-passage-4-passage/

    https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-68-section-1-passage-4-questions/

    0

    Hello, I had a question concerning PT 41, Section 2 Q13. This is from LG 3. Q13 asks for a complete and accurate list of members that could be in the finance committee and in AC E (which is marked as the correct answer), the options listed are only M,U,W. When we follow the in/out procedure, we find that H is a possible member that can be added to this group (J.Y. even has so in his explanation), so my question is why is this correct then given that this question asks for a complete and accurate list? AC E seems accurate, but is it complete?

    Admin note: edited title

    https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-41-section-2-game-3/

    0

    I've been trying to improve my LR, and I find that a lot of the questions I get stuck on seem to be conditional diagramming questions (be in weaken/ MSS / NA / SA, etc.) .. wanted to drill them to try and improve. If anyone has a list of conditional diagramming questions across different question types, please share- it would be a real lifesaver! I don't see a filter for them on 7sages separately unfortunately..

    0

    Confirm action

    Are you sure?