Hey everyone! I wanted to ask if there was some form of process / equation / anything mechanistic to attack the math questions dealing with proportions and absolute values?

Having to constantly plug and chug numbers (or drawing pies) is fine, but I wish there was something more elegant that wouldn’t leave me with the feeling that I might be leaving out some possible consideration. It's been taking me far longer than other question types (and it's hard to be consistent) to get to the right AC for math questions.

Additionally, I haven't finished the core curriculum yet, but are nearly all the questions-that-require-you-to-conclude-something-about-a-number on the LSAT just dealing with % vs quantity?

.

I have been struggling to chain up conditional statements together, and am looking for extra practice on this particular skill. I went back to the CC and found a few exercise problems on the following page:

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/chaining-conditional-statements-together-exercise/

However, I really want to drill more of these and was wondering if anyone knew where I could get more of these exercises.

Thanks in advance!

If anyone is scoring great in rc and has tips / does tutoring please let me know I am missing all my points in rc. I am missing like 13 in rc and -2/3 in everything else. SOS.

What do you think the scale is?

Hi,

Can anyone explain why the answer here is B instead of C? I just feel like JY's explanation for why B is right instead of C seems a bit insufficient

Thanks!

This question presents the cheetah as an exception to the coat pattern attributed to large cat species. From the stimulus, we know that Living/Hunting Habitats have an impact on the type of Coat a large cat has. We also know that, normally, Spotted Coat -> Habitat = trees and dappled forests. Meanwhile, Plain Coat -> Habitat = open plains.

Yet the Cheetah has a Spotted Coat, while living in the open plains. How come?

My problem with this question is that the most valid support for A (the correct answer) seems to be that it sharply distinguishes Cheetahs from all other large cats, which suggests "well, I guess cheetahs being weird regarding X helps explain why they're also weird regarding Y: they're just weird compared to normal large cats". But that still feels to me like A is just basically saying "ah, they're an anomaly because...they're an anomaly". If I asked this question to an expert on large cats, and answer choice A was his explanation, I'd just feel like it's another way of saying that he doesn't really have an explanation.

Another explanation for A that I've read is that "they don't rely on stealth, only purely speed, so it makes sense that they're in the open rather than in forests", but this, to me, seems to assume a lot about what kind of hunting strategy is most appropriate for large cats in forests. Regardless of whether it's true, I feel like we can't assume this based on the information on the stimulus.

I'm curious if anyone agrees with my assessment, or whether I am not assessing it the right way.

Thanks

Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-87-section-3-question-04/

How do you represent neither nor ?

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/visual-representation-of-or-and-not-both-in-inout-games/

Basically, my issue is with the whole explanation from JY. But for discussion sake let's focus on Q23.

If you read the question paragraph or question stem without reading Q23, you will figure out that J and K are bidirectional i.e. cannot be in the same clinic together (proof below).

So my question is why is then Q23 can have A too as the right answer choice.

Proof

s and r are locations

Js -> Kr

~Kr -> ~Js

Ks -> Jr (because only s and r are there)

Therefore, Ks (-) Jr

Hi all, I was wondering if any of you are going through/or have ever gone through the complaint process.

I administered for November 2019 as my second take only to find myself in total frustration. My proctor accidentally started the timer while she was still giving out the instruction even before we were allowed to start on our first section. Having discovered from the tablet screen that time was being counted, most of the fellow test-takers, including myself, immediately informed the instructor of what was happening. The proctor, at first, insisted it wasn't being counted, only to admit a few minutes later that the timer for the first section has already begun. Most people started to panic, realizing that some precious minutes were already lost in vain. Many of us, feeling bewildered and frustrated by the fact that we weren't already off to a good start, asked what we should do, but all she could do was hurrying us off to the first section. In trying to relieve our anxiety, she also added, "It's not a big problem because I can manually add all those lost minutes afterward. Approximately three to four minutes were lost.

As much as I was frustrated, I was as determined to do well. I tried not to let this frustration get on the way of my performance. However, although I worked hard to maintain my composure, the impact carried on throughout the first section, and the pacing for each question wasn't nearly at where I usually was for practice exams. The first section ended with many items left unattempted. What was even worse was that I typically save all the questions that are down to two answer choices for the last minute. With those extra minutes promised in mind, I planned on at least putting in answers for those questions during that time. But things don't always turn out the way you wish. As soon as the digital clock reached 0, the screen turned to the next page. Immediately following the first section, a man who appeared to be in charge of technical issues walked into the room with the proctor and told us they aren't able to adjust the time as promised as the program was digitally hard-wired. With whatever the concern or complaint we may have, we have to talk to LSAC, he further added.

And my day went downhill from that point on. My heartbeat started pounding and palms sweating. That feeling of [I've got to get all the remaining questions right if I were to have the slightest chance of achieving the target score] only worked against me, aggravating self-control and composure, let alone my mental sharpness. I managed to sit through the entire exam, but I knew I was doing that only not to feel worse about myself.

I instantly submitted the formal complaint letter to LSAC, and a few days later received an acknowledgment letter informing me that there will be an investigation regarding an incident, and some options may be available for me once it's complete. A temporary hold has been placed on my account ever since, and I still haven't heard back from them in more than three weeks.

Have any of you 7sagers gone through this process where you had to submit the formal complaint because your performance was affected due to some issues beyond your control? If so, what was the process like, and what are some of the options LSAC offered you? What should I be expecting? At this point, the best thing I can wish for is a cancellation without any record, as I have already cancelled once before. Do you know if LSAC has ever offered this kind of option?

I am even debating whether it'd be better for me to wait and aim for the next cycle to apply. Even if I end up slaying the January exam, I won't be able to apply until February, and I worry if that's too late to have any good shot at top schools.

Any advice, anyone? I apologize if any of this sounds too whiny. I didn't mean to, but I think I am just feeling lost and not sure what would be the most practical step to take.

Apparently the LSAT Administration had equipment issues across North America so they had to cancel, but they never shared what they were. But then a later email sounded as if there weren't enough test proctors, so not sure what really happened but this threw my application process plan off a bit. Anyone else impacted by this? Has this happened before? Sometimes staying traditional with paper and pencil exams works best. I'm still waiting for my confirmation that I can take the January 2020 exam and I've been on hold for an hour with the LSAC line.

Stmt: Either A or B is in the forest

Question: Is "either or" and "exclusive or" here ?

My Answer:

No, because atleast 1 has to be there but not both.

A B not both

0 0 0

0 1 1

1 0 1

1 1 0

My Discussion:

"Either or" is different than "not both" because "not both" truth table is below.

A B not both

0 0 1

0 1 1

1 0 1

1 1 0

Notice the 1st line is different in both truth tables.

Question for you guys:

please see if my logic is correct

Hi everyone,

I am wondering if anyone knows when the Fall 2020 test dates will be posted?

Q7 here:

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/inout-game-1-questions-part-1/

Are "noth both" and "neither nor" equivalent?

I want to quickly discuss a common type of causation argument that LSAC uses.

Here is an example:

Those who wear glasses are more likely than those who do not to have knee problems. To ensure good knee health, ditch the glasses.

We take a correlation and make a recommendation, seems pretty innocuous- maybe this is sound advice.

No! This advice is rooted in making an assumption. This assumption is a really bad reasoning error. It is assuming that wearing glasses is what causes knees to have problems. That is why the advice to stop wearing glasses to prevent knee damage is given. Notice how the argument never comes out and says "Glasses cause Knee problems", that would be too easy. The implicit assumption that the argument makes is inferring causation from correlation.

As we know, when A is correlated with B, there are 4 possibilities :

For our advice to ditch the glasses to work, we would need A to cause B, or, in other words, glasses to cause knee problems. If it really is the case that knee problems cause people to wear glasses (B causes A), then just stopping wearing glasses will do nothing, the advice would be terrible. Similarly, if genetics causes both knee problems and glasses and that is why we have our correlation, then taking glasses off will do nothing. In short, the only way our advice works is if glasses really do cause knee problems. We cannot say this is the case just based on the existence of a correlation, there are 3 other possibilities which are equally likely.

Boiled down to variables the argument goes like this:

**A is correlated with B

If you desire B, just do A.

or

If you want to prevent B, don't to A**

Well, for this advice to make sense, we must assume that A causes B and we cannot do that based on a correlation.

These questions are sometimes tricky because they make intuitive sense. They will really try to make the advice sound good, despite making a correlation causation error. Here is one last example:

People with a lot of sugar in their diets tend to get disease XYZ more often than those who do not. To lower your risk of XYZ, cut out sugar from your diet.

Well, we know sugar is bad for health, so this does not seem bad at all. BUT, this argument commits the error of taking a correlation and jumping to the conclusion that sugar is what is causing XYZ. This is done implicitly (hence to title of the post) and is not ok for the reasons discussed above!

PT 78 S3 Q21 (https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-78-section-3-question-21/) is a good example of this form and disguises the flaw with an argument that seems to make sense.

Hope this was helpful!

Hello~

RC is currently my biggest struggle and I want to incorporate possible non-LSAT related ways to improve my reading comprehension skills. Maybe some books or podcasts? I am open to all recommendations!

Also if anyone has any tips on how to improve RC, I would really appreciate your feedback! What I do currently is pause after every paragraph to summarize what I just read + pause at end of whole passage before questions to put together the structure of the passage. Hence, I do well on broad questions but I struggle with questions that require memory of detail.

Oh also (sorry it's getting a wee long) I used to get significantly more questions right when I solved the RC problem sets from the CC compared to when I take full practice tests. I am hoping it's because I am not familiar with the mental stamina required to take the full length tests. But if anyone has had a similar experience, please let me know what steps you took from that point!

Thank you in advance!!

Hi everyone! Because a student of mine is taking the January test and he won't be working on the lsat anymore, I'm looking for one more student now. If you're interested in working with me, please send me a message. Remember to tell me your RC score range, PTs that you have done, your weakness, the time you plan to take the test. Thanks!

Hi everyone! I’m Cindy. I would like to have a student and offer free tutoring on RC. Sami is my tutor and I’ve been working with her for nine months. I learned how to read actively, break down and evaluate the arguments on RC and I have made huge improvement (I was scoring -10+ before, I didn’t understand most of the things I read in RC). I am not a native speaker but the reading skills that I learned has helped me deal with the difficulty most of the time when I don’t understand the meaning of some words. Now I score around -5 on RC. I realized that the best way to improve my skills more quickly might be teaching it. This can be beneficial for both of us since we both get to improve. AND IT’S FREE!!! I am looking for someone who is currently scoring around -8 or more on RC and would like to work with me. It would be one hour per week. Please contact me if you’re interested. :)

I'm in GMT+8. It’s +14 hours ahead of CST. But we can definitely make this work.

Hello,

Understanding we all have different time constraints, etc. - How long did it take you to perfect Logic Games (-1, - 0)? Any additional tips going through Logic Games?

Looking forward to hearing any input!

Could someone please explain this for me.

I understand that

A's wrong because it doesn't paraphrase the MP completely

B and D's are wrong for obvious reasons.

I picked C but half-guessed it.

#help

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

Has anyone brought their Cell Phone to the LSAT how strict are they this year compared to others.

When will the explanation videos for test 89 be posted?

I can't wrap around my head on the idea that the first rule implies that Guettierez MUST be on the aisle seat

It only say that Hoffman is behind guttierez aisle seat, and it would have been too risky to make an assumption that G is in the aisle only.

Can someone explain why C is right and E wrong? Is it bc C aligns with the hypothesis and is what we would expect assuming the hypothesis is true, whereas for E, E allows a scenario where seals start off ignoring whales that do not eat seals, which would go against the hypothesis?

Also, I felt the language about the seals “ignoring” the not threatening whales confusing. It took me while to figure out that “ignoring” just meant not being scared of them and even being willing to go close to them. It’s the opposite of “aversion”. Anyone else got tripped up on this?

Admin note: edited title

Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-87-section-2-question-18/

Hello!

As the January test comes around, I'm starting to get a bit anxious with my RC score. What used to be my strongest section is now my weakest, and I can't tell where I am going wrong.

Looking at the Analytics tab, Application Questions (Purpose of passage & "Consistent Principal) are where I am struggling with the most. Does anyone have any advice tackling this area, or is it just continuing to read & practice generally. Would really appreciate any insight people have gained on this section

Thank you in advance

I am having huge fluctuations from test to test with the LG section, sometimes scoring 20 but sometimes scoring 10. I would say I more often score closer to 10 but every couple tests I score 19-20. I certainly feel this difference while taking the tests as some are so clear while other games jumble me. I guess it just comes down to hammering more games until I get to consistently scoring around 20.

Wondering if anyone else is experiencing a flux like this?