Hello everyone,

I am currently doing some LR problems and I've had a recurring problem. When writing out conditional statements, I am sometimes confused whether a subject is part of the conditional statement or it is a subset of another item. This is best illustrated in an example. On preptest 21, LR 2, section 3 question 22 the stim states: "Anatomical bilateral symmetry is a common trait..." When doing the problem I wrote: ABS --> C. However, in his explanation JY simply put C, rather than the conditional relationship. So how do I know when to write a conditional or when to indicate a trait/subset by itself (ABS is common = C - ABS vs ABS--->C)?

Thank you in advance for your help.

Hello. I'm having trouble wrapping my head around why the correct answer choice is A. The second sentence of the stimulus says that NO OTHER ORGANISM has a greater resistance to cancer than sharks. Answer Choice A states that "no organism resists cancer better than sharks do, but some resist cancer as well as sharks." This is true according to the analysis given for the second sentence in the stimulus, and therefore it does not match the question stem criteria of selecting an answer that could be true EXCEPT.

Consequently, I don't understand why answer choice B is incorrect.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-28-section-1-question-11/

I don't want to bomb the October one and have to wait until the spring to take again. Does LSAC frown upon people who take it more than twice?

Should I take full tests or should I isolate Logic Game sections and fool proof after. I am currently getting consistent 15/23 questions right for LG and want to get to mastery by my October Test. I tried drilling a few sections this week and it somewhat helped but I don't know how to get to mastery. Any advice would help and I am sure many have asked such questions before. Thanks!

Hi all, posting for advice on admissions and LSAT retake. I signed up for June and July tests, scored a 166 on June and was disappointed to get back a 165 on July today. I really had hoped for at least a 168 on July, but here we are.

My question at this point is whether I should keep studying and take one more time in October and apply as soon as those scores come back or if I should apply with my 166 on first day applications open and retake in October once I have already applied? I know that I can get at least into that high 160s range from PTs and I have been consistently BRing 173-174 on my PTs before July. For reference, I have above a 4.0 GPA and solid resumé and would really like to shoot for T14 (maybe with at least a partial scholarship) or a little lower ranked with full ride.

I took the July test and today saw that there was "Score validity review" under the special notes column for the July test on my LSAC page. Does anyone know what that means?

I contacted LSAC and am waiting for their reply. I would really appreciate if anyone could give me some idea in the meantime. Thank you!

I am struggling with MSS Question types. Any tips?

Hi Guys,

I am coming back to 7Sage and law school prep after a almost 5 years away, so I am out of the practice studying as well as with the current news about the test. I apologize in advance if this topic has been discussed 8 billion times.

What is replacing the Logic games and when is this happening? Have there been any major changes to this or any other section since the ruling to take the games away permanently?

If anyone has any advice as to what I should focus on, or any areas that are not as helpful anymore, is much appreciated.

Hey fellow 7Sagers,

I'm having some trouble understanding this question.

Here is how I diagrammed it:

CR ----->/LW

SRO---->LW

(and then I diagrammed the last premise)

L (--S--)CR

SRO -----> /L

I hooked them up by taking the contrapositive of the first premise: SRO ------> LW -------> /CR (--S--)/L

But ultimately, I wasn't able to find the right answer. And JY says that we're supposed to disregard the last premise—Some lawyers are not cattle ranchers L(--S--)CR. How am I supposed to know that I should completely ignore this premise and why? This was the sentence that kept me from getting this question right! I need someone to clarify this concept, please!

Cheers!

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-18-section-2-question-02/

Hey! I've gotten a lot out of this discussion forum, so I thought I'd do my part and help some peeps out. I made a Logic Games Log to track progress... I have been using this along with a method shared by another 7 Sage user to increase my proficiency on LG.

The Method:

*With each attempt, use this log to track your time, questions missed, and thought process.

I hope this helps!!!

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1E05DctHMKGabrygoAXcemGB8y7wBHBf_/view?usp=sharing

The vast majority of LR questions turn on your ability to see the gap between premise and conclusion. If you can understand why the premise is good or bad support for the conclusion, the question type becomes trivial and the answer choices fall into your lap. Evaluating an LR stimulus is similar to LG -- do the work up front and you will be rewarded. This post will discuss a way of thinking about arguments that may help you to better evaluate them.

The idea is pretty simple. First, identify the premise and conclusion. Then ask yourself : Just because premise... does conclusion HAVE to be true?

Example: It is a very sunny day outside. JT's ice cream shoppe will be busy.

Just because it is sunny out, does JT's ice cream HAVE to be busy?

Well probably not...

What if JT's ice cream sells god awful product?

What if JT's is in the middle of a desert and no customers are even close to it?

What if it is sooo sunny out that people are too hot to leave their homes?

This test helps to expose why the premise isn't really great support for the conclusion. This is the first step in LR success. If you can consciously figure out why an argument isn't great, you take active control of the question. This makes you less vulnerable to traps and more likely to pick the credited AC.

It sounds trivial, but LR is as simple as thinking about why premises do or do not support conclusions. The difficulty lies in slowing down, understanding what the words are really saying, and putting the gap in your own terms. Hopefully the "Just Because" framework can help make this easier!

Hello,

I'm confused as to how this answer is D. I'm torn between C and D. Is C wrong because if you fail the sufficient (don't have the Pterodactyl consume the red algae , the colouration could still be caused by other factors? Whereas D gives more indication that since it lived in an area that was abundant with red algae, that its more likely to have consumed it?

#help

I feel like my accuracy is pretty good on LR, but does anyone have any advice on how to get through the section in a more timely manner? Strategies? Shortcuts?

Hey all,

So yeah long story short, im doing quite terrible on RC. Im averaging about -9ish, on my last PT i got -11 on RC but still finished with a 164 because i did well on the other sections. I really want to tighten my RC up to at least getting something like a -5 average, is that too much to ask for?! For those who are good at RC, or who improved quite a bit, could you offer me some advice?

Hi everyone, I tend to see a trend in my PTs that I miss most of my questions in LR between Q15 and on. I wanted to starting drilling this level of difficulty questions.

Do you guys think drilling "medium and harder" difficulty in LR would be the equivalent difficulty of questions 15 and on?

Thank you in advance (:

I need a bit more explanation and practice of chaining conditional statements. Are there additional resources here or has anyone found a good resource for that? Thanks!

Hi can somebody help me out with this question, there is no explanation available and I don't really understand the difference between answer choices D and E. Thanks

Did anyone else get rid of A and C and choose B because it seemed as though A and C were essentially the same answer and therefore neither one of them could have been correct?

Okay...am I losing my mind here? The type of work described in AC A (the alleged correct answer) isn't even mentioned in Jorge's statement. AC E (what I chose) describes a work of art that both Shanna and Jorge have differing opinions on. Unless moral right =/= ethical right, or if "tires of it" doesn't qualify as "finds caring inconvenient", I really do not see how answer choice E is incorrect. Could this be a mistake in the system?

For example, say we took the conditional statement "raindrops are formed in the clouds unless there not is an eastbound wind."

Group 3 translation would be: "If there is an eastbound wind, raindrops are formed."

In this situation, can we assume that the eastbound wind comes first and then raindrops are formed afterwards?

Can someone please help me diagram and understand the inferences made from these statements?

Some As are Bs.

All Cs are Ds

No Bs are Cs.

Here is what I have so far.

AsomeB—-> ~C

~D—->~C

Inference: Asome~C

test

I'm consistently missing about -2 or -3 on LG. When I go back to do them after I score my PT without looking at the correct answer (only knowing that I got that question wrong), I get them right. I haven't been able to find a pattern in the questions I miss. They are usually unflagged, not-even-hard games or questions. I really want to get to -0 for August. Any advice appreciated!

Can someone help me with these questions. I can't get myself to agree with the answers.

1.Commentator: The quality of health care is declining. Medical schools have been graduating fewer people than are needed to replace retiring physicians. Furthermore, on average, a physician now spends only 15 minutes with a patient on the patient’s first visit.

Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the commentator’s argument?

(A) The average length of all patient-physician visits is 20 minutes.

(B) More and more people are seeking physicians, thus increasing the number of patients that physicians treat.

(C) Most patients do not like to spend an inordinate amount of time in physicians’ offices.

(D) Five years ago, the average first patient-physician visit lasted 10 minutes.

(E) Most patients visiting a physician are suffering from ailments that are not life threatening.

2.Peterson, the current world record holder in the women’s 100-meter backstroke, has ranked first in the world for seven years. Her performance in recent competitions was disappointing, but during training she unofficially beat her official world record time. So she can be expected to set a new world record in the 100-meter backstroke during the upcoming world competition.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

(A) Peterson is widely expected to win the 100-meter backstroke in the next world competition.

(B) Peterson had the flu during a recent competition.

(C) Peterson has also set world records in several

other swimming events.

(D) Peterson is the only active world-class swimmer

in the world to have set a world record in the

100-meter backstroke.

(E) Peterson has in each of the past seven years

swum faster during world competitions than during training for those competitions

What’s the distinct definition of and/or explanation of the assumption in a mistaken reversal. Mistaken Reversals are daunting at times when I’m under pressure, sometimes I pick up on them, sometimes I don’t 🤦🏾‍♀️ 🥴🥴😩😂 I’ve found at times that when comparing the variables A and B in the premises that the follow A and B Variables in the conclusion; I find they are never identical 😩 that’s why I sometimes mistake- mistaken reversal for mismatched concepts instead; because my variables never follow in order for me to confirm the “like terms” were flipped 🥴 also if that is not the case should I always follow the necessary variable in premises and make sure it isn’t flipped to the sufficient in the conclusion ?!? #Help lol am I overthinking it?!?