I never thought this day would come, but come it has.

Do you have any advice on when to do grouping games regularly vs. when to do grouping games with a chart?

I sometimes see a rule that says something like:

X does not play in the same match with K

J.Y then interprets this rule as X --- > /K

Where as I take this rule to mean the same as a bi-conditional.

can someone #help clear this up for me?

For the parallel method of reasoning questions, if the stimulus concludes with "therefore they should not do this thing." Can we eliminate answers based on the negation in the conclusion? Like if the conclusion in the answer choice largely matches, but says "therefore they should do this thing" can we eliminate it because it doesn't match the negation?

Like for should/should not statements, does it have to match directly?

Thanks!

I've been struggling to decide if it is worth the time/beneficial to watch the explanation video of a LR question I get right. I have been getting some hard questions right, and I feel pretty confident in my answers. I wonder if it would be even harmful to watch the video in the fears that it would confuse me if J.Y's explanation isn't the same as the one I had in my head, or if that is helpful? I'm studying on a pretty limited time frame, so I wonder if I get a question right, I should just move on.

I'm signed up for the July test, and my primary goals are drilling logic games and taking practice tests. After watching a 7Sage webinar on skipping, I've been inspired to think of the test differently and try something new as a secondary goal. Up to this point, I've been averaging one skip in LR with -5 or -4 in each section. I would like to shave that down to an average of -3 by using a few more skips in exchange for time at the end to go over any other tricky questions. (Essentially, I would like to choose which questions to get incorrect.)

So far, my issue has been trying to rush through the questions to shore up more time by the time I reach the last question. When I do, my accuracy suffers. This is only my first week of trying this new strategy but it does pain me a bit to see my score go down in my drills as a result.

People who have used this method successfully, what am I missing here? Do I simply need more time practicing it? Is five weeks before test day enough time to make it work? Would I be better off doing more blind review to sharpen my conceptual understanding? If more/better BR is the trick, what should I be asking myself to go faster without losing accuracy?

Why were there no comparative reading comp passages on PTs 88 and 89? Did LSAC get rid of them? Will there be comparative reading on the LSAT Flex?

Has anyone tried color coding sufficient/necessary conditions in LR?

If so, has it made it easier for you, even up to the point that you don't have to write it out any more.

For example, highlighting all sufficient conditions yellow and necessary conditions orange. You can map it out easier on paper then as well.

In the unless statements, don't highlight the not in the sufficient condition, just the rest of the sufficient condition so its read with the negation done already.

Or the 3 seconds to physically clicking the button to change highlight colors just kills too much time?

Any thoughts... Thanks

I have a quick question on the meaning of only if. I realize that for an example if a statement says: An living organism is a human only if the organism is not a dog. I know that can translate to If a living organism is a human, it is not a dog. However, in a MBT, MSS, or NA scenarios, would the use of ONLY IF potentially count the answer choice wrong even if the statement has identitical conditional structures? For an example: What if its the case that A living organism that is human is not a cat? A bird? a plane?

Hello,

I am using the Powerscore bible for Linear Game, but the information is at times overwhelming. I am looking through 7sage to see if they discuss linear games. But I am having a hard time noticing if it is labeled as something else. Would anyone be able to clarify this?

Thank you in advance!

I've been studying for about 6 months to prepare for the June test next week. On my first few PT after the core curriculum, LG was my best section and I was only missing 1-2 per test. Even though I do problem sets on the tough games that I have missed questions on, I now miss between 4-8 per test, which makes me a little nervous only being 5 days out from the real test. Obviously I don't have a ton of time to really foolproof, but does anyone have tips on being more consistent in LG?

Can "should" really be part of a conditional statement or is "should" only used for Psuedo Sufficient Assumption Questions/Answers... "Should" means I most likely need to do this, its not a guaranteed result/solution like a conditional statement -necessary condition. Would appreciate everyone's thoughts on this because its all over the lsat prep tests and I cant find it covered in the syllabus.

I have been working on Logic Games for about 5 weeks now and I feel like I am hitting a wall. Because I have been fool-proofing and have a limited number of hours in a day, I have only been able to get through "Introduction to Logic Games & Sequencing Games" and "Sequencing Games with a Twist."

I keep redoing old games and getting one or two wrong. This is frustrating and also unclear if it is evaluating me properly because I am definitely remembering questions that I have done 5 + times. So, as much as I try to play each game anew every time, it is hard to really do so under time constraints. When I am up against the clock, I find myself picking the answer I remember.

Do y'all think it makes sense to move on? Or keep fool-proofing?

Does anyone know what the difference is between SeqOne games in LG and SeqPure games in LG? They seem to be more or less the same lol.

Hi,

I think this question is infamously hard... can anyone explain why the answer is D and not C? Both C and D looked incredibly attractive :(

P.S. I have read a lot of explanations for this question, and the top 2 I have seen (but don't feel fully address why D is right and C is wrong) are:

explanation #1-- D is the only correctly qualified answer choice: D is the only one that talks about "viewers" and all the other answer choices talk about other groups of people that may not include the surveyed viewers.

My problem with explanation #1: D talks about "viewers surveyed immediately prior to the debate", while the stimulus talks about "viewers surveyed immediately after the debate". These 2 groups may or may not intersect. In addition C talks people who people who watched the televised debate, which also may or may not intersect with the "viewers surveyed immediately after the debate" described in the stimulus. Thus, both C and D may or may not qualified correctly.

explanation #2-- it is totally possible for us to take the information in C and not weaken the stimulus at all. After all, let's say that the people who watched the debate were 5% more likely to vote for Tanner than those who did not watch. It is still possible for the viewers surveyed among the people who watched the debate to be biased for Lopez.

My problem with explanation #2: a flaw also exist with D-- that the viewers surveyed immediately prior to the debate are not the same people surveyed after the debate. This could mean that D could be true without weakening the argument too. In this respect, I feel like it is still quite difficult to balance between the 2 answer choices when both seem flawed, and it is hard to tell which one is less flawed.

Thanks!

Best regards

Hi everyone! I hope you all are killing the study grind! Anyways, I was wondering if anyone had some tips on Reading Comp? I understand what JY is doing, but I am not seeing much improvement in my score. I understand there might not be a lot of strategy to Reading Comp, but I didn't know if any of you might be doing something that works for you?

Thanks again!

Hi everyone,

I'm a bit confused about the answer choice D. #help

Premise 1: Each of the EMP winners from the past 25 years covered by Acme retirement plan

Intermediate Conclusion/Premise 2: the Acme Plan offers the winners a financially secure future

Conclusion:It is probably a good plan for anyone with similar retirement needs.

Stem: most vulnerable to criticism

Correct Answer(D): It takes for granted that some winners of the Economic Merit Prize have deliberately selected the Acme retirement plan, rather than having had it chosen for them by their employers.

I think the Intermediate Conclusion does not really follow the Premise 1. But If we should accept all the premises, then we probably need to accept the Intermediate Conclusion. After accepting it, even if these winners have not actively chosen the plan, anyone with similar needs may still be financially benefitted. How does D points out the vulnerability?

Or, maybe we do not need to accept the Intermediate Conclusion, though it's also a premise?

Having taken about a dozen PTs so far, I've noticed that I seem to be shifting from a general range of -1 to -3 on RCs to -3 to -7s. I'm currently on the Logic Games section of the curriculum and have noticed significant improvement on LRs and on the LG game types that I've gone through in the curriculum so far. True, I have yet to start the RC sections, but I am surprised because I think I should have built some RC skills since a lot of the argument breakdown/general logic lessons I've done are applicable to RC.

It could be that I am just hitting harder RC sections(the blackmail passage on PT65 was dreadful, answers right or wrong based on the tiniest of qualifications/inferences) but I think something is off about my approach-I've noticed that I feel much more constrained by time than I was before in RC, thinking 'how the hell am I supposed to read all this AND answer all these questions in 35 minutes?'. One factor I think is that I feel it is harder to 'get the right answer and move on, check later' with RC because there is less conditional logic, and finding one answer that seems right does not preclude another answer that is 'more right', unlike a lot of LR questions where there is by the rules of logic there is one clear answer'. There's more of a need with difficult RC questions to 'weigh' the appropriateness of two close answers.

I'm taking the July Flex test, and I'm aware that RC will be weighed more than usual, and I'm not jazzed about my initial greatest strength slowly becoming my Achilles' heel Since all the PTs I take are 59+, I'm wondering if I should concentrate on finishing the curriculum which is no sure thing even with full time studying, or doing more RC problem sets by themselves, even before I get to RC in the curriculum.

I'm a slow reader by nature, and years of school have pretty much taught me to skim everything I read for the main points to combat that. But studying for the LSAT, and especially LR, I've learned it's so important to read every single word to get the full meaning. When I have all the time in the world and when paragraphs aren't that complex it's usually not a problem.

The problem comes under timed pressure. I usually end up panicking and skimming to get main ideas. I end up missing questions that I easily could have gotten without that pressure.

While reviewing, I often find words I missed like "some" "many" "significantly" or "likely" that were the key to getting the question right. In Blind Review I really only miss 1-4 in LR and timed I miss more like 6 -10. The disparity is even greater in RC where I usually end up guessing on an entire passage for lack of time.

Did anyone else have similar struggles while learning to read for the LSAT? Are there any types of drills that helped? Or is it more of a long-term mindset change? Or any advice to overcome the mental aspect of the LSAT and avoid panicking would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you guys!!

I am wondering if I should take the LSAT again... I have studied for about a year now. My average score has been 154, but the week before the test I scored a 161. I was very excited and positive that I would do decent on the LSAT-Flex.. but I ended up with a 151.

On the day of the test, my test was delayed 30 minutes and I had to sit there and wait in silence until I was matched with someone who could conduct the test with my accommodation. It really messed with my nerves the first section, but I used all the skills I could to calm down.

I was really hoping to only sit for this one time. I feel pretty burnt out, but I was shooting for some schools around T-14 to T-30 schools and only one T-2 reach school... Is there any advice that people have? Is it worth putting in more time to try again? I've heard mixed things about people's score not changing much. At this point I just want to start working on my other application needs...

Hey anyone down to go through this game. According to the information out there it’s seen as one of the most challenging grouping games. I completed the game untimed and only missed 2; so when I went back to the video explanation on the site, JY set the game up different from mine. I used RSTY for my slots and GPLH for my moving variables. I got question 9 wrong because I flat out could not figure out what it was asking me:( and I got 11 wrong - now for this question I did huddle my variables and realized G was the most restricted, however I didn’t understand why answer B was correct over C :( ... can someone please provide a video and/or feedback for this game.

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-28-section-2-game-2/

Starting to foolproof logic games, and I'm wondering what other people's personal practices are for the process (i.e. how many games do you do per day, do you wait until you've mastered a game before you start a new one, or do you rotate between a few while mastering them, etc.) I can't help but feel like I'm neglecting other sections of the test by devoting so much time to only LG, so I'm also wondering if y'all do different section types during a study day. Any details you can provide or tips about the process would be super helpful!

I have a quick question on the application of the "or" rule in the Games. For an example, lets say that in a 8 slash sequencing line, if a rule states that L comes right before S or R comes right before H go together, this is an inclusive or right. If L comes right before S, it is still possible that R also can come right before H right?

Hi, everyone! I wonder if y'all could give me some advice on how to improve my speed while also maintaining accuracy?

For the past few months, I have been practicing untimed PT sections (1-35) because I wanted to focus on improving my accuracy first. I started with a 144 for an untimed PT, and I have recently achieved at my 170 (but still untimed). Now I think I should focus on improving my speed, because under timed condition, I cannot finish all my LR questions. Usually there would be 4 or 5 left and I don't have extra time to check those questions that I am not pretty sure. I know that if I cannot increase my speed, then my actual score would be much lower. Therefore, I was wondering if y'all could give me some advice? I would really appreciate your help and kindness! Thank you!!

I am working on making an interactive flow chart, but I thought I would share what I have typed up so far. Please feel free to correct/add on, or give any suggestions on memorizing other than flashcards. I have a pretty ambitious idea for a flowchart/app, but it's hard to work on that and also study for LSAT so probably won't happen anytime soon.

**Weaken**

weaken

most vulnerable to the conclusion

most vulnerable

counts as evidence against

calls into question

**Strengthen**

strengthen

most helps to justify

Support

**Sufficient Assumption**

true if assumed

enable conclusion to be properly drawn

justify the conclusion

the conclusion follows logically if (This is also a keyword for MBT so watch out)

**Debate**

counter

in response to

**Paradox/Conflict**

most helps to explain

resolve

explain

account for

discrepancy

surprising result

**Conclusion**

main point

main conclusion

**Must Be True**

must be true

follows logically (also a keyword for SA so watch out)

inference

properly inferred

properly concluded

properly drawn

**MSS**

most strongly supported

most strongly suggests

**NA**

necessary

depends

required

relies

assume/assumption

the conclusion does not follow unless

the argument assumes which one

**Method **

argument proceeds by

describes

argumentative technique

method of reasoning

strategy of argumentation

**AP**

role in argument

function in argument

argument part

the reference to

the statement that

**Flaw**

flaw

most vulnerable to criticism

questionable technique employed