Discussions

LSAT

New post

206 posts in the last 30 days

hello!

so for a lot of Phen/Hypo Weaken questions, the way to attack them is to find an alternative explanation. One example of this is PT61.2.11.

My question is - how do you know if an answer choice's "alternative explanation" is TRULY an alternative explanation that weakens the argument? I ask this because there are often TRAP answer choices that seem to be "alternative explanations" but are actually consistent with the argument.

For example, in PT55.1.7, a weaken phen/hypo question, answer choice E seems to provide an alternate explanation but is actually consistent with the conclusion, and is thus a trap wrong AC.

But back to PT 61.2.11, AC A is the right AC. But how do we know it's actually an alternate explanation? Can't it also be consistent with the explanation? Can't it be the case that drivers feel possessive of their parking space and are also less quickly able to perform maneuvers with their car?

When you provide an alternate explanation to weaken a phenomenon, does it have to be completely distinguished from the original hypothesis in the conclusion?

In sum, how do you tell the difference between trap wrong AC's that seem to provide "alternate explanations" but are actually consistent with the original hypothesis in the stimulus, and real right AC that are actually alternate explanations that weaken the argument.

Many thanks!

0

I am confused because the correct answer to this question seems like it's a necessary assumption and not a sufficient assumption, as the question stem would describe it to be. I generally regard necessary assumptions to be the "bare minimum" standard. It seems that "societies being geographically isolated enough not to have been influenced by any other society" only allows for, and does not guarantee, the conclusion to be drawn. When I really analyze the question I guess I could see how it's sufficient, but am I crazy to think that this reads so similarly to a necessary assumption? Is there a helpful technique for distinguishing the two in a situation like this?

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-60-section-1-question-22/

0

So I've noticed that in recent commentaries, JY says that when you do a LG, as you write down the rules, for each rule you write, go down to the 1st question and eliminate AC's if that's an acceptable situation question.

That way, by the time you finish writing down your rules, you would've already finished the 1st question (if it's an acceptable situation question).

Is this protocol? Should we do this for every Logic Game? Why is this a good strategy?

Any advice or comments would be appreciated.

Thanks.

0

Hey 7sagers,

First of - hope this personal learning story of mine helps.

I still think I am in my early stages of studying. I feel like I see a huge improvement in LR and LG. However, RC is still my worst section thus far. It takes me sometimes 14 + mins to do one passage, which sucks. Reason being my reading speed was to slow. I was focussed on annotating and really trying to remember the nitty gritty details. However, I analyzed my approach, why I got questions wrong and made a few changes. Here they are:

Note taking: From reading a bunch of online stuff, watching webinars, etc. - note taking in my opinion is off two types: 1) to help you UNDERSTAND the passage 2) to help you find things in the passage quickly. For the second one (finding things in the passage quickly) - it requires you to have your note symbols down solid + forces you to note take A LOT. I tried this second method in great detail - but I felt it really did not help me much + wasted more time. Reason being that it forces you to go back to the passage back way to often when most RC questions in my opinion are not designed for that. From what I have read and heard dozen times from JY - RC is about big picture. Unless a question refers to specific line - then go back to it. If not, going back to the passage to analyze your notes is a MAJOR TIME SINK. Again this is based upon my learning styles, might be different for others. Now, I focus more on understanding when reading a passage. Meaning - I won't circle/underline/etc. a lot - rather after a reading few sentences, pause and make some connections in my head and move forward. I felt this cut down my overall passage time by 4 mins + gave me a strong understanding of the passage. This does not mean I do not annotate - it just forces me to be more selective with the process.

Reading by going at the flow of your pencil: It helps me having my pencil underneath the word and leading my reading pace, whereas just reading without doing that. I am not sure if it helps others but I feel it sort of helps me go at my "own" speed when reading.

Choosing Questions to Tackle: As JY has mentioned before in LG - to go about the game by choosing question types that are more restrictive and allow you to attack the game in a more efficient manner. For example, do a must be true question in LG before a could be true question. Similarly, I felt in RC, certain questions are set up in the same manner. For example, before I read the passage I take 15 seconds to number my questions in the way I will attack them. Usually I go about in this manner: 1) Main Point of the Passage 2) Primary Purpose of the author/ Primary purpose of a certain paragraph 3) Questions that refer to specific lines in the passage 4) Inference & Most Strongly supported. Usually I go about in this manner b/c the Inference/MSS questions are usually time sinks and challenge your understanding of the passage. This will allow you to continuously get the "low hanging fruit" in each passage + enable you to use more time on questions that actually need it.

Wrong Answers always have the same Clues - Just got to quickly find them: This can be said again for most of LR answer choices, however I feel this pattern is a lot more obvious in RC. Common tricks I see in RC is strengthening words (for example: something is the "best" - usually that's a detail in a passage I would circle and not BIG Picture understanding), comparison between two things (for example: Person A will know more than Person B), wrong viewpoint (for example: the question specifically asks about the author's viewpoint, whereas the answer choice states a critics viewpoint).

Right now my goal in RC before going to timed actual sections is to get from 10-11 minutes (which I am currently at) down to 9 mins and under. Hopefully by the time I finish all the problem sets in RC I get to that. Wish me luck and I hope this helps you all!

Cheers!

6

I feel like I make most my mistakes on LR because I'm rushing too much and don't catch the little details/nuances in the question stem. When I do BR, I usually get these rushed questions right. Anyone have any advice on how to tackle this?

0

Hi everyone,

I'm having a very difficult time finding the answer to these sort of questions. I completely understand the Premises and the conclusion. I'm able to break down the prompt very well.

My issue comes in when I start reading the answer choices and nothing seems to click. Normally I'll look at the answer choices and the ones that are wrong I can pick out easily. But, for these I just see words on a page that just don't make sense to me.

How do I engage these questions?

P.S. I've watched the webinar and it still doesn't fix my problem, I feel like it's very broad and very little explanation now how to view these in a different light. Again, that's just my opinion.

0

Apologies if theres another discussion that already covers this!

I finished the CC a while back and am planning on taking the January LSAT. I've noticed that my main area of weakness is with LG. Right now, i'm only getting each section about half right and I tend to run out of time for one game in each section. At this point I know I need to focus on fool--proofing LG but am wondering what the best strategy for this would be?

I've read some people say to do PT's 1-35 over and over again to fool--proof but i've also heard from others that the LG sections in those PT's are vastly different to newer PT's (and that those PT's might not be as useful).

I was wondering if anyone could give me some guidance on which PT's are the best to fool--proof?

0

Hi wonderful people,

I am just reaching the end of the LR portion of the CC and I am feeling good, but nervous for logic games. Do you think I should review all of the LR i studied from the beginning for a few days and then move to logic games, or just carry on or alternatively, do both at the same time.

Any advice and encouragement for logic games is appreciated :')

0

hey all,

has anyone had experiences/thoughts on applying the negation test to certain RC questions?

So, I feel that for certain "infer" Q's, they're kind of like Must be True questions.

Where there is 1 Must be true AC, and 4 Can be False wrong answer choices.

Thus, for the wrong answer choices, if you negate it, it can be consistent with the passage and true.

On the other hand, for right answer choices, if you negate it, it clearly contradicts the passage.

For example: pretend the passage is just one sentence: The dog is brown.

What can we infer from this passage?

A) The dog is brown

B) The dog can fly

C) Unicorns are blue

D) Dogs are ugly

For Answer choice A, if we negate it (the dog is NOT brown), that directly contradicts the passage, and is thus the right answer choice.

For the other 3 answer choices, they're unsupported, so even if we negate it, it can still be true.

Anyway, does anyone have any feedback/thoughts about this analysis?

0

Hello,

I've been scoring anywhere between -3 and -6 in each LR section for the past 7 months.

On some lucky days, I have -3 section, but I more frequently get -5 to -6 per section. I just realized that this is a probably score plateau. I use skipping strategies and timing isn't so much of an issue to me.

But I'm starting to think that I'm not improving at this point in LR. Every time I take a fresh LR section, I find it very challenging. I often think, "how am I supposed to tackle all these traps gracefully under 35 minutes?" Too much information to juggle in my poor brain! I've been studying for almost two years, and I've gotten so much better at LR, but it is still so, amazingly difficult!

When you score -3 or under in an LR section, how did you feel when you were taking the section? Did you feel like you nailed it or you had control over it? How many questions were you uncertain of? Did you nevertheless get most of them right?

Based on my plateau experience, I'm sort of developing a hypothesis that in order to score -4 or under per LR section, you shouldn't find the section too challening while taking it. Does LR get/feel easier after you break the plateau?

LSAT is incredibly hard for me, and it's really hard to trust my brain.

I invite a diverse range of scorers to participate in the poll below (vulernable to many flaws, probably :'(). I'd like to inquire into the hearts and minds of other LSAT students and evaluate my own heart and mind.

If you could comment why you selected a particular option and possibly share your score range, that'd be great!

Thank you so much.

1

I was studying for the Sept. exam but finished the curriculum so close to the exam date I didn't get to take enough PTs before and wasn't exactly where I wanted to be so I withdrew. In the few that I took I was PT'ing in low 160's but BR'ing in high 160's/low 170's. My goal score is a 167 or higher so I know I'm close! I'm good on LR but need to improve in LG & RC and have 2 months to prep. I haven't tried fool-proofing yet, is it smart to spend a whole month fool-proofing or should I just take PTs and drill these two months?

THANK YOU!

0

How's it going everyone? I am officially registered for the January 2019 LSAT and actively working on 7sage's Ultimate + study material. Through the course of my studying I'd like to set up study sessions with others also registered for the January LSAT and or anyone who would like to join. I'm located in Orange, CA. We could meet up in person or through a medium that allows video chat. If anyone is interested, please let me know by replying to this post/private messaging me. Also, a little bit about me, I am 32, currently working for Progressive Insurance's house counsel, engaged to my best-friend, Arizona State Alum, Marine Veteran and a huge sports fan. My goal score is somewhere in the mid-160s. I hope some of us are able to connect!

5

For 60.3.6,

there seems to be a distinction between "2" and "many," which would make AC C wrong.

But I thought "many" is "some" and "some" includes "2"?

Where am I going wrong?

also, both AC C and D change subjects from premise to conclusion

For AC C, the subject changes from reviewers (who enjoyed the new novel) to a reviewer (in next Sunday's newspaper).

For AC D, the subject changes from reviewers (in general) to reviewer (for the local newspaper).

If someone could explain this problem to me and the differences for why C is wrong and D is right, that'll be greatly appreciated.

Thanks so much.

0

I would like to start by apologizing as I am sure there are similar posts that already exist. I was wondering the best way to get back into studying for the November test? I have been studying for a while now and sat for the September exam. Things did not go as planned (at all) and I am planning on canceling my score (waiting to hear back from LSAC regarding my testing center complaint before doing so though).

I was averaging around 160 on my PTs prior to the September test. Would it be beneficial to go through the CC again or are there other strategies that would be better since there are only two more months until the exam? I thought I was fine with LG (until the test came) so I plan to work harder on fool proofing. Additionally, I find RC to be a huge obstacle for me (I can score anywhere from -4 to -12). I don’t believe that LR is much of a challenge...

I do not want to wait another year (already delayed one cycle) so November seems to be my last shot. I took the past few days off from studying and am finding it hard to get back into the swing of things because I honestly just don’t know where to begin. I quit my full-time job a month before the September test and studied around 6-8 hours a day. I will not be working for the next two months either as I was luckily able to save up enough in case this scenario played out. So to prevent a long post from getting any longer, I’m really just looking for any recommendations!!!!

Thank you in advanced. This community is the best!

6

Hey guys! Im taking the LSAT in November. Ive been self studying a bit, but not really learning anything on my own. I need to really learn how to attack each question type in logical reasoning and logic games. My score on a timed prep test is 130. I scored 148 on an untimed prep test. I really need help to raise my timed score. What course do you recommend for such a short period of time? I study 12 hours a day, so I have the time to put into the courses. Thanks for your help!

0

so i think this PSA Lr question hinges on whether you correctly understand the conclusion.

Can someone explain to me how

"how well an underground rock groups recordings sell is no mark of that group's success as an underground group" (what the stimulus says)

means the same as

"how well an underground rock groups recording sell is UNSUCCESSFUL?"

how does have something not have a mark on success mean it's unsuccessful? can't it just be irrelevant?

I'm really confused here- thank you!

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-60-section-3-question-24/

0

Confirm action

Are you sure?