I've been looking at this question for the last 20 minutes, watched the JY's explanation, and looked through the comments. Still have no idea what is going on. Can someone help explain it to me?

Thank you!

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-36-section-3-question-18/

Hi guys. I'm having a hard time understanding why answer D is the correct answer. I understand that the question states what would weaken the Doctor's research study the most, but why is E not a good answer as well? If the study continued with100 more children older than infants, than wouldn't that also prove that this is a good way to weaken the argument?

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-53-section-1-question-08/

So I just got back my January score and I am feeling very defeated and dissapointed. I’m not giving up though. I am trying to decide if I should sign up for June of July. I know July gives you your score instantly I am just worried about the digital tests I know they give you scratch paper for LG. Will they be giving scratch paper for LR? I know it is highly based on logic so I like writing next to the statements. That is just my one worry.

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.

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):

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.

Hi all,

So I'm drilling a lot of LR timed sections using early PTs (10-20s) because I've kind of burned through the 40s and 50s repeatedly and I want to save the 60s onwards for full, fresh tests. Other than the two for one question-stimulus questions, I feel like once or so per section there's a misc. question stem (e.g. 13.4.17, 13.2.25).

I was just wondering, how common are these misc. question stems in the newest tests? I've done a few PTs in the 60s and 70s and remember there being fill in the blank questions, but nothing quite like this? I was just wondering whether or not these have made a comeback in any way, or if I should just ignore them.

My second question for high scorers in LR, what is your mindset like while taking a section? Currently, I'm experimenting with the balance between making myself go faster/stay on task, and staying calm enough to process everything yet not go too slow. Do you guys tend to lean in either direction? I know it's personal, but just curious.

Thanks!

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!

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!

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"

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

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

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?

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!!

Let me know if you’re in the Bay Area and would love to study? I’m having such a hard time with the LR section!!

Hey everyone,

Just wondering if anyone has any tips for full proofing LR?

Hello 7sage! :)

I am in Orange, CA and am looking for someone with a little bit experience to Blind Review with starting after the holidays! I'm new to 7sage, so I want to make sure I master this method correctly. I'm looking to break the 160s hopefully. Would prefer in person but am open to other options too!

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!

Hi all,

I'm based in Manhattan. Wondering if there is anyone else here planning on taking July test and wants to connect.

:)

Hi guys!

So Ive noticed that after taking practiced LR sections, that 4 star necessary assumptions are one of my weaknesses. I was wondering if someone else had encountered this issue and how or what solution they took to correct it?

Hi guys,

Not sure if this is normally asked but I want to ask anyway because I want to know what it means when I run into it. Can someone reference an example of this and what it essentially means in an argument part question? Its such a simple term but I can't conceptualize this into words. Thanks.

For reference I ran into this in 27.1.17

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/

Guys, I seem to have improved a lot on the LG section, all thanks to JY's video explanations, etc.. Just wanted some feedback on the LR section , which is where I mainly seem to be getting stuck.. Am registered for the March LSAT and am really hoping to be able to improve by then in that section. For some reason doing PTs / powerscore bible / LSAThacks explanations still don't seem to be doing it for me to really crack that section.. Any advice on what is the best resource for improving LR score? Did you guys see a marked improvement after JY's LR tutorials?

Anyone have a good list of terms that indication correlation? I have a hard time distinguishing what’s causal and what’s correlated.

I have until June to improve from a -6 average on RC to -2. I've only just now discovered the question bank on 7sage and am thinking about using it to drill RC. I figured the best approach is to simply pick the earliest test range 1-16 and start with the medium passages and work my way up to the hardest passages. Then repeat with the next test range. I feel like if I were to incorporate JY's explanations and writing out low res summaries for each passage. I figure with this approach improvement is bound to happen. Has anyone tried something similar?

Def. just subscribed. For those that have time and the money to purchase i think this will be extremely helpful for the reading comp. section.