I see this answer choice often (The argument ambiguously uses x, or argument relies on interpreting a key term differently), and JY always says this answer choice is often used as the correct answer. But I feel like I have never noticed it, and don't really have a good understanding of how to spot a stimulus that does this. Do any of you guys have any tips or resources on how to tackle this kind of flaw question? Especially with the harder ones, there are so many possible flaws that my pre-phrased answer just doesn't help.

Hi, I am having trouble with every miscellaneous game (not I/O, Seq, Grp, Hybrid) I encounter on the most recent PTs. Does anyone have any good advice for approaching these? I am worried about getting one on the Sept. test in less than two weeks, because they suck up so much time and I usually don't get them right until I think about them later without the time pressure.

I have spent too much time to crack the formal logic questions. Is there any method that would help me to deal quickly and effectively?

Thanks

So, for RC I seem to have a common issue on my PTs. I always seem to run out of time. I finish 3 passages and the questions (usually only skipping one or two) but never the last one. On all of the three passages I get all of the correct answers minus the ones I skip and guess on. When I BR, I then am able to correctly answer all of the questions for the passage I missed.

Just wondering if perhaps I am taking too long to read/comprehend the passage? Or am I spending too long on certain questions? Also just looking for some RC tips in general.

Anyone else struggling to keep up with LSAT study and full-time school? These upper division classes are insane with the amount of time they require.

I just was going over RRE questions in BR and a strategy came to mind on how to eliminate or pick answer confidently. I would say most, if not all, RRE questions are asking one to explain why something is different or despite them seeming different, why they are similar.

In the process of BR, I found this approach to be helpful: step one, depending on if one is looking for a difference or a similarity, make sure the correct aspect is present in the AC; step two, ask WHY this difference/similarity is important.

I write this because I've seen a trend where I get stuck between two or three ACs on hard RRE questions. I know exactly what I am looking for in the realm of differences or similarities, which usually leaves two or three left, but then I get stuck because LSAC writes the diff/simi cleverly. Taking a second and asking "why is it important" has made me totally and confidently eliminate answer choices that looked correct to me before I asked it. Asking "why?" seems to focus my thinking on how the AC's proposition is relevant in its attempts to fix the problem more clearly then just reading it and seeing how it "sounds" when pushed back to the stimulus.

I'm not sure if everyone else already does it this way, but I thought I would share what helped me.

Thanks and study hard!

Hi all,

I just discovered the analytics section of the grader program, and it’s very clear that I can raise my RC score by getting better at the question stems involving inferring the authors perspective.

Yet, there is nothing in the syllabus that is obviously for working on this type of RC question. As my exam is 9/8, I don’t have time to watch all the RC videos. Can anyone point me in the right direction?

Thanks!

Danny

Hi guys, can someone please help break this argument down. Thanks a lot! :)

Admin note: edited title

Title says it all! What are you reading to keep your mind sharp for good ol' reading comprehension.

I find that I often circle the correct answer and then erase it and switch to an incorrect error. On my last PT this cost me about three points. Also, if I go back to my circled questions when I still have time remaining in the section, when I change my answers I often change them from the correct answer to an incorrect one. Has anyone had any experience with this/have any ideas to solve it? I think that sometimes I don't really understand why the right answer is right but I can "tell" that it's right, but not knowing for sure makes me hesitate. This is specifically with LR, not really in the other sections.

This question is still confusing me after watching the explanation. I thought the question stem was Pseudo Sufficient Assumption.

I thought the best way to approach this was to try to attack the flaw. As an argument by analogy it just seemed highly unreasonable to assume that what works for Biology would work for Physics. I think I'm mostly confused because it didn't strike me as a strengthen question to begin with.

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-65-section-4-question-22/

Hey everyone,

I've gotten to the point where I'm quite confident in my abilities about most of the games, but I'm having a lot of trouble with getting the In/Out games to click, especially when it comes to mastering the conditional rules and logic chains. If anyone has good suggestions about good strategies for mastering these in particular or tips about how they've been used on the recent LSATs in particular, that would be very much appreciated.

In particular, the questions where a sufficient in a long logic chain is failed or the necessary is met are particularly vexing for me.

Looking forward to hearing from y'all!

Hey Sagers,

So I am writing in September and the one area I am struggling with is MISC LGs. I do well on the other game types but when I get an MISC game it totally throws me for a loop ( I think I am at 10% accuracy over 16 Qs). My question is for those of you who have had similar problems did you find fool proofing older MISC LGs to be helpful? I know a lot of the older games of this type are driven by a specific pattern so I'm wondering if fool proofing those games is a good use of time when the test date is right around the corner. Im currently on PT 74 (started at 66) I'm thinking either keep taking PTs and BRing and fool proofing those games, or set aside 2-3 days and fool proof all the MISC games up until 74. I think theres like 25 or so. Thanks!

Can anyone lead me in the right direction for help with diagramming quantifiers? I’m using a company called LSATMAX and for some reason it’s just not clicking for me. I feel as if for both sufficient & necessary conditions and quantifiers that i will have to go back and find better understanding for both. I use it correctly for most must be true questions but not for questions dealing with “most closely parallels”, “flaw questions”, “must not be true questions “ i actually haven’t even gotten to those sections yet to drill any question types from “parallel reasoning” or “flawed”. I also have powerscore and LSAT trainer for after i finish the core curriculum as well, but for now i need help with quantifiers.

I have come back to this question a few times and I still do not fully understand 1. Why D is wrong and 2. Exactly what C is saying.

This is my understanding of the stimulus and answer choice D: The more sunlight that is reflected back into space, the cooler the atmosphere. Snow and Ice reflect more sunlight back to space so the argument concludes that earth's surface covered with snow/ice would be cooler. So if D is correct and the atmosphere derives most of its heat from passage through the sunlight through it AND if snow/ice reflects more of that sunlight back to space than land without snow/ice, wouldn't this strengthen the conclusion?

I am not really sure what I am missing here. None of the online explanations seems to click with me so any help/feedback on this would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you!

Admin note: edited title and added link

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-79-section-1-question-10/

What are the chances I can improve from a 155 average to 160ish by November? Working a full time job.

I took a diagnostic in June at 150.

Games are my biggest down fall (50% average)... possible?

As stated in the title, why would we write rules for logic games on the first page of a game, answer one question, and then waste a minute or so re-writing them on the next page? It seems to me that it would be a faster approach to write all the rules on the second page from the get-go, answer page 1's question, then dive straight into page 2's questions.

I suppose that the time taken to write the rules might take long enough to negate any time benefit, as you have to flip back and forth. Either way, you have to flip back and forth at some point, so the only time saved would be on the initial time spent writing the rules, not time spent flipping back and forth between pages.

EDIT: After testing this out a few times, I noticed I was more prone to error in writing rules down. So that is definitely one concern with this approach of writing rules straight onto the second page.

How would one write "A then B or C but not both"?

I usually use "A -> B/C not both" when solving games, but I was wondering if there is any other way to rewrite this statement.

According to our conditional translations, I think the statement could also be written as A -> (B(-)/C), but it looks very weird...

Can anyone help? Thanks :)

My diagnostic was a 143 and I wrote the June 2017 LSAT and I got a 150. I then wrote the February 2018 LSAT and I got a 157. I plan to rewrite in November to bring up my score. Do you think it would be possible to score a 160+? I'm just starting to study for the November 2018 LSAT intensely this week. Ideally I'd like to score a 165, I'm just wondering if that is even possible?

Apologizing for the essay in advance but ...HI guys, I think I've posted regarding this topic before, but as the test date draws closer this issue is becoming more pressing for me. I did a PT last week and I got a 150, I've improved overall in RC and and LR, but I want to add I got this score while COMPLETELY bombing the LG section (I'd rather not say what I got but I pretty much failed). I know my issue is not one of understanding, because I BRd the LG section first just to see what I would have gotten if I had answered like I know I can and my overall score went up to a 158 (18/23 after BR on LG). My goal is a 160 and I feel like this section is the only thing holding me back from achieving it. I don't know what else to do at this point, I've done hundreds and hundreds of LG questions, and done so many timed LG sections I've lost count. Like I said I know that I understand it but I just can't do it under timed constraints and I know it which causes me to panic during the PT. Do you guys have any suggestions of what else I can do? I've practiced so much and I feel like its not really helping because like I said i DO understand it, I just feel like I can't do it on time. I'm open to tutoring, or just about anything at this point.

Any help or insight would be greatly appreciated

Thanks

I get confused when there's a double negative in a sentence. For example, "No duck doesn't like water."

Normally, I would diagram this:

/D --> W

Because I would negate the second term ("doesn't like water" becomes "does like water") and the sufficient condition would remain the same (no duck).

But when I think about it in English, I realize that the double negative cancels each other out so it's like saying, "All ducks like water" which would be diagrammed:

D --> W

Any suggestions on getting past this hiccup?

Thanks!

I know everyone recommends reading the magazines The Economist and the Atlantic for improving reading comprehension.

But it seems philosophy majors should have a distinct advantage in reading dense abstruse passages. Should I be reading philosophy books on the side to improve reading comprehension?

I am quite confused why number 5 is D. D and C seem almost identical in pattern, what makes D more right?

Admin note: Please use the format "PTx.Sx.Qx - The beginning of the stimulus" and indicate which section it's from.

Thread title kind of says it all. I'm extremely nervous about this section because it will most likely determine whether or not I reach my goal score. I've done 20+ RC sections since I began studying and have been scoring anywhere from -6 to -16... which is extremely concerning. Just recently I was able to get through all 4 passages and only had to blind guess on 4 questions (before I could barely get done with 3 passages and question sets.

I was wondering if anybody had any tips or review methods that helped them get better and more consistent at RC? I watch JY's videos which seem to be helpful but i'm still struggling with being consistent.

Thanks in advance!

Hi all, I think my problem with LR right now is not having enough time to do a thorough second round. I have tried for a long time to get through the 25 questions in 25 minutes but have not been able to do it. Right now, I usually complete the questions in ~30 minutes, leaving me ~5 minutes for a second round. I do try and skip questions--I skip around 3/4 if I can't understand the stimulus/don't like any answer choices.

If I had 10 full minutes, I really think I could get my score higher. For those who have achieved answering 25 questions in 25 minutes--how did you do it??