I am able to recognize premise, conclusions and the approach to classify the inference family LR. However, when I see the questions I freak out and get totally lost. All the answer choices look alike. It is hard to decipher the correct answer and I give up. Help................. !!!!!!!!!!!!!! . Please and Thank you.

Hey 7Sagers,

Here's the official January 2020 LSAT Discussion Thread.

**Please keep all discussions of the January 2020 LSAT here!**(/red)

Rules:

✅ You can identify experimental sections. 🙆‍♀️

You can say things such as the following:

❌ You can't discuss specific questions. 🙅‍♂️

You CANNOT say things such as the following:

In case this helps anyone:

When down to 2 ACs that weaken an argument to 2 different degrees, pick the one that matches the degree of the conclusion.

When down to ACs that provide sufficient and/or necessary conditions that could serve as the missing link (SA), pick the one that clearly triggers or fails something. If it's a mystery, that doesn't help at all.

Don't second guess yourself when only one AC is right. If all other ACs have been confidently eliminated, flagging that question will only cost you valuable time.

When down to 2 ACs that both mention the key word or concept you know will be in the correct AC, only one is in precisely the right context. Make sure the key element is performing/describing the correct thing.

If you're confused when piecing together a list of facts, some with numbers, some with %s, give the situation real round numbers and apply them to the contending ACs. Don't mistake many for most. Many could be some, which could be a different subset from some other some. (Some historians claim X, many historians are wrong - do not assume overlap.) Some can mean just one. 

When looking for a NA in an argument that strikes you as just plain weak, say to yourself, "Within the universe of this shitty argument, which AC points out something that matters, something that absolutely has to be true or else the shitty argument has no leg to stand on in the first place?"

When 2 ACs have the proper conditions to satisfy what MBT, pick the one that matches the stimulus in terms of what is sufficient versus what is necessary. Don't get turned around by the language. What is literally required? Put everything methodically into S->N. Don't overthink.

Parse out the conclusion of convoluted arguments. Sometimes it's just stating that an action will lead to a goal, the NA is that it's possible for said action to lead to said goal.

With parallels, remember sentence order NEVER matters and logic order ALWAYS matters. Be sensitive to distinctions such as "any" versus "one instance."

When there's no obvious explanation for a phenomenon in a RRE, look for an AC that would push one element of the equation in the particular direction that would provide an alternative explanation of the phenomenon. Do NOT give in to bringing in outside bias (such as generic costs less than brand names).  

Don't let ACs bait you into "attacking" or "rethinking" a premise - you must assume all premises are completely true no matter what. Period. You are only trying to attack the manner in which the premises "prove" the conclusion. Never pick an AC that merely restates a premise. That's not even good enough for PSA. It does NOTHING.

Never settle for, pick or eliminate an AC you don't understand. Never help an AC out and try to make it fit the mold of a particular flaw. ONLY pick it if it makes total sense.

Be sensitive to WHILE as a conclusion indicator. While X (concession), really Y (conclusion).

Argument parts sometimes can be assumptions or denials of assumptions. Label them as you go. 

Don't assume the exact same number of people need to be tested in an experiment. Pay attention when a stimulus starts to compare apples to oranges (or bone samples to blood samples).

Be sensitive to subtlety. (Saying it's wrong for a country to diminish prosperity isn't the same as saying it's wrong to hinder the growth of prosperity.)

If you're spending too much time stuck between 2 ACs, SKIP, read again on Round 2 with the rest eliminated.

Always bear in mind that just because someone claims, says, believes, thinks something does NOT make it one of the things in the stimulus that we accept as true. Accept what the author says. Everything else is suspect. 

https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/6816

This is from Nichole Hopkins one of the great sages, this is pure gold for RC.

Hi there. I'm truly confused about this question even if I have scanned the possible right explanations from other platform.

Link1: https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/forums/q5-large-quantities-of-lead-dust-t5368.html

Link2: http://jtaken.csoft.net/LSAT/Test%20Explanations/preptest11.pdf

Link3: https://forum.powerscore.com/lsat/viewtopic.php?t=8854

Each of them emphsized on the different points. So, I want to hear some advice from 7sage on why C is the correct answer.

BTW, as a non-native ENGLISH speaker, I'm also confused by the question stem. Is it asking us to weaken the content of the recommendation or asking us to weaken the act of giving the recommendation?

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

I find when Im doing games, when I actually just understand the rules I go -0 or -1 at the most. But hammering out games these past few days ive run into rules in which I now realize I think i need to make a mental note or itll just screw up the entire section. Is there a way to get around this? Right when they give us scratch paper am i allowed to write these notes down literally just to keep a mental check? For example,

PT 44 game 3 arch sites the rules were "this is from a more recent century than this" and i totally misunderstood and thought 8th century was more recent than 9th century lol so i misdiagrammed the entire game and couldnt figure it out till the questions

OR when a game says which is a complete and accurate list

vs

a complete and accurate list "any of which" can be x

or when a game says "how many spaces seperate" i need to remember to just count the spaces in between x and y and not including x and y

Should i just literally remember this going into the section or what? I think its worth it to spend like 10 seconds remembering these basic rules to not rush, just so i make sure I dont screw up the entire section...

Hi All. I have two questions:

(1) Roughly when did the important distinguishing features of newer logical reasoning questions become the norm? I'm thinking in particular about longer and tougher stems, more frequent strengthen/weaken/RRE questions, less frequent formal logic questions, and generally trickier answer choices?

(2) In these newer LR sections, are the toughest questions typically found between questions #11 and 20? Or are 21-26 generally harder? Or has it gotten more random?

I've been largely following the "save the best for last" approach in my studying thus far, and so have only recently moved from tests #20-45 or so to more recent tests. Recently, I've begun alternating between tests near #80 and closer to the 50s, and plan to keep doing so. Today, though, I took my first test in the 50s (#55) after taking a couple near #80, and the LR sections felt much closer to the old style I'd been used to than the new style I'd seen in #78 and #80---in particular I noticed more formal logic, and that the hardest questions were located near the end rather than the late-middle. So I'm wondering what to expect. Roughly when did the shift that happened between early and late tests occur, and how accurate is my sense (partially based on some article I now can't find) that the newer sections have harder questions towards the late-middle?

I am struggling to get more than 17 right on LR consistently. I reviewed all the LR curriculum but I'm still unable to break the 17 right during timed sections. I have noticed a few trends. During timed LR I am usually getting the first 10 correct in about ~12 minutes. I usually run out of time and don't get to 3-4 questions so I blind guess on these. Of the 3-4 it's very unlikely that I get one of them right by chance. During BR I am usually able to get 3-4 correct out of the 3-4 I skipped.

My BR is usually around ~20-21 and ideally I would be scoring as close to ~21 as humanly possible! Any advice?

Also, I'm practicing from tests 1-20 right now out of paranoia. I do not want to "waste" the good/more recent exams. Is this legit reasoning or is it smart to "save" the more recent exams for full practice test practicing purposes?

I’m getting into the weeds of the curriculum. Earlier on in conditional and sufficient reasoning, I see the use of diagramming. However, this creates so much more confusion than it’s worth. Has anyone had any success in LR without using the extreme details conditional reasoning? It’s easy in the LG section but doing 4 or five in one string is time consuming and confusing. I’m not trying to score a 180, just a solid 160+. Thoughts?

Where do I go to get help with logical reasoning questions? I understand individual elements of lawgic, but when combined I fail to get answers correct. For example, when I do the groups 1-4 quizzes, I get all of them right, but when I do all of them on one quiz I get them wrong. Another example, when I have symbols to manipulate for any strategy with logical reasoning I'm fine, but when I'm given words to translate into symbols, I just get lost in the words because the examples in the lessons are easy, but the quiz questions are significantly more convoluted. I have left comments, but I only got one response so far so I would like to try a help session or a tutoring session. I am searching through where to find help now, but if someone could point me in the right direction, that would be helpful. Thank you.

Hi all, can somebody explain why answer choice (c) is incorrect?

I thought it was a good choice for the following reason:

(C) Whenever most practitioners of a given discipline (the psychologists) approach a particular problem in the same way (should the childhood age group be understood in its own terms), that uniformity is good evidence that all similar problems (should the elderly age group be understood in its own terms) should be approached in that way (yes, it should be understood in its own terms, just like psychologists do for children)

Please, if you can let me know where I’m wrong that’ll be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,

Thank you for opening this~

I'm registered for the Feb 22 exam so I am trying to be at max. efficiency level with my studying LOOL.

I was struggling with RC for the longest time but after EXTENSIVE review I think it's finally clicking with me.

My score per PT now depends on how I do on GAMES. I really want to get to that -0 / -2 (max) level by test day.

I only miss more than 2-3 on games that are a little "untraditional" (for example, PT 80 game 4). When I hit game 4 on PT 80, I stayed calm and tried to use intuition to push thru.. but got stuck... big time.

Do you all have any tips on how to improve on these kinds of games? Also, if you know any PTs with funky games please let me know!

To all my fellow February takers.. we got this!

In the flaw section of LR, I have a hard time understanding the common argument flaw of sufficiency-necessity confusion, as JY calls it. I never seem to recognize a flaw argument that is committing the sufficiency-necessity confusion flaw.

Due to this, can anybody show me an example of an argument that is committing this flaw and explain to me how it constitutes a sufficiency-necessity confusion? Thanks.

I was wondering when the video explanations will be up for the November 2019 LSAT

Hello,

I did not choose A (the correct answer) in this question because I thought "specific examples" was incorrect given the fact that the passage did not raise any plural nouns and actually seemed quite general to describe their examples. Can someone explain why the examples raised in the passage count as "specific examples"?

Thanks!

#help

Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-25-section-1-passage-1-questions/

Hi everyone,

I am still quite confused about why answer choice D is wrong here. After all, couldn't it be argued that P is proposing a hypothesis (that M's hypothesis is laughable) and showing that it is merely possible (by stating that it is possible that a person who knew the epics well enough to write them down would not need to read them nor would anybody else be able to read them)?

In a sense, why does P's counterargument not count as a hypothesis?

#help

Thanks!

Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-24-section-3-question-04/

In LG, when given a question stem that provides a new premise AND includes the terms: could be true, must be true, could be false, and must be false, etc. I tend to take a lot more time than I should in trying to process the question. Usually, I am dealing with a game board that I split, so it takes me even longer to try to figure out the relationship between the question and the game boards that I have in front of me. I'm planning on drilling this particular skill, and was hoping someone could look over my notes:

Could be True: inference has to work in at least ONE of the game boards

Must be True: inference must be true in ALL the game boards

Could be False: as long as the inference could be wrong in ONE of the game boards, it's wrong

Must Be False: inference must be false in ALL the game boards

Cannot Be True: is this the equivalent of must be false???

I feel like JY addressed this in the CC, but can't remember exactly where. Also, are there any other terms that I missed?

Thanks in advance!

I recently started a wrong answer journal to help pinpoint where I'm going wrong on answers. Most of the time, I find myself making reading errors or approaching an answer the wrong way. Upon further reflection, I can typically recognize my error, describe it to myself on paper, and then I try not to do it again. However, sometimes it genuinely comes down to the fact that the answers just didn't click. I look back at the answers choices and think to myself duh, of course that's the answer. In these situations, I have no reason why I didn't answer correctly other than the fact that I just couldn't find the right answer at the time even though in retrospect it's pretty obvious. It's not timing because sometimes I spend a significant amount of time on them. Maybe just anxiety even in a practice test setting?

Does anyone have any insight on what might be happening here? Or how I can correct for that? I'd like to figure out the error of my ways to continue improving my score! Thank you!

Are we allowed to ask for explanations for specific questions on the June 2019 LSAT? I'm working through them now and am stumped on one LR question.

Thanks a ton!

Mary Simms (outdoor advertising rep): "Billboards are the basis of our business. If they are torn down, our ability to earn a living will be severely damaged.

Jack Jordan (local merchant): "The basis of our business is an attractive community..."

When Mary said "our", she meant her advertising business.

When Jack said "our", he meant the town/community.

Hence (C) is the correct answer.

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

The conclusion of the stimulus is that the decline in energy consumption is due to

(1) reduced standards of living and

(2) changes in the way people spend their time

So we are looking for 4 answers that fall into one of these two buckets (or both).

(A) is the purchase of portable heaters and limiting the number of rooms. Falls into category (1).

(B) is people spending more time in libraries and community centers. Falls into category (2) because they're changing the way they spend their time.

(C) is people decreasing energy costs by having inexpensive work done to improve efficiency of existing heating system. This doesn't fall into category (1) because the standards of living are the same, and doesn't fall into category (2) because they aren't changing the way they spend their time.

(D) is a decreased indoor temperature on very cold days. This falls into category (1).

(E) is people showering for shorter amounts of time. This potentially requires the assumption that shorter showers means category (1) reduced standard of living, but compared to answer choice (C) this is much more clearly falls into that bucket.

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

Hi fellow 7Sagers :) it's my first time posting on here but would really appreciate your advice.

I'm scoring around low to mid 160s and BRing around 170-175 range. My biggest challenge is that my LR scores fluctuate a lot (from -2 to -7 per section before BR). I'm mostly missing level 4/5 questions that are logic heavy (e.g. parallel flawed question, method of reasoning, etc.). It takes me over 2 mins to answer these questions as I'm slow at drawing out conditional logic. So would like to ask if anyone scoring around my range benefited from going back to the core curriculum or any tips on being more accurate/fast at this types of questions? (drilling by question type, etc.) And any other tips on narrowing gap between actual to BR score would be much appreciated!

Thank you in advance!

Hi. I got my July LSAT score back yesterday and I’m shocked by how low it is (149). I’ve been studying 15-20 hrs weekly since May and all the PT’s I took leading up to test day have been in the 158-164 range. I scored a 149 on a PT back in May and I distinctly remember that I was extremely distracted at the time. Does anyone have any advice??? I can’t believe my score is this low! I feel like I have a good grip on the material and the basics, so I’m wondering if something went wrong on test day (test anxiety or maybe filling in the scantron wrong). Please help me out!!

Can someone please explain to me how they arrived at the answer to this evaluate logical reasoning question?

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

deleted