Hi,

I've foolproofed almost all the games from PT1~current, with a few remaining fresh PT's.

I've done at least 2,000 games. I have no problem meeting the target time when I repeat games.

But whenever I face a new LG section, I go anywhere from -8 to -10. My cold score for LG was -10 (PT68), which I took two years ago. It's so strange that I have made almost zero improvement, although my conditional logic is much more solid than it was two years ago.

I know that there are patterns on the LG, but I have serious issues registering new rules into my head and pushing out inferences under time pressure. My brain really,really suffers whenever I see new logic games.

I've been doing almost only LG prep intensively for the last two months, but my LG performance is actually getting worse.

At this point, I'd be very happy with a -5 on the real thing.

Any help or encouragement will be appreciated.

Thank you.

Hey guys :)

I was just wondering if anyone has advice regarding RC. I've tried drilling the memory method again and again but it just doesn't seem to be working. RC is the thing holding me back from hitting 170 because I don't have the slightest chance of even reading one of the passages. I'm stuck and I'm not sure where to go from here. I think I'm understanding the material but I'm spending about 6-7 minutes answering the questions.

The question is linked below:

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-44-section-4-question-22/

I'm looking for advice because upon first read, I thought this was a mistaken reversal flaw, but now I think I misinterpreted the meaning of "protect". When I first read this stimulus, I got hooked on the causal relationship, but to relay my thought process, I figured there is more than one way for a dog to get arthritis outside of neutering. Maybe you feed your dog all the time and it gets extremely obese and his/her brittle bones can't support it's meaty body. That's a weird example, but I just figured that arthritis is just a condition that has more than one cause leading to it and eliminating one cause doesn't mean there isn't another.

That's why E looked so attractive. Properly developed bones in an obese dog could still get arthritis. However, I now have to find a reason for why that is wrong, and that reason might lie in the definition of "protect". Just because an owner protects his/her dog from something, doesn't mean that the thing being protected against won't happen. It just means you're lessening the chances of that thing happening. If that's the right way to interpret this stimulus, then I can see the conclusion not being flawed in that way. I just read "protect" to mean to completely eliminate the chances of your dog becoming arthritic.

What do you all think?

(Edits for additions)

Hey ya'll, I don't know if this will be helpful to anyone, but I am hoping that sharing this will help to reinforce it in my own head. LG is my worst section by far. I started out going -16+ and without any understanding. I read Kims LSAT Trainer and that helped but I was still feeling hopeless. I am now Foolproofing 1-35 and finally feeling a modicum of proficiency. I understand/recognize 99% of the stuff they throw at me. I am like Yoda during BR. But it's not all there under timed conditions yet. Basically, I have this gap between BR and timed. I possess all the ability and knowledge to go -0, but I need to train all this knowledge and ability to work together consistently and reliably when the clock is ticking.

Drawing Best Practices

-Read "with pencil down". Circle/underline key words. Never get burned by mistaking "exactly one" for "at least one".

-Visualize the gameboard before drawing. Difficult games may appear as one thing but actually be another.

-Write/draw neatly and use the space wisely (remain calm. calm writers write neater)

-Keep it as visual/representative as you can. Don't be mechanical at this stage and feel free to modify pieces in their "pool" if it is helpful.

-As you apply rules to a master gb, eliminate those. Before moving on to the questions, consider rearranging the remaining rules so that everything is together (rewriting)

-When splitting, visualize the outcome and leave room for further splits.

-MBT/F: if you have doubt about the right AC, diagram it. Don't get stuck here. Literally ANY world that abides by the rules will give you the correct AC. If you are stuck, skip it and return.

-Don't draw elaborate sub gbs, make them representative, but skeletal.

-If you find an error on the master gb, return to previous questions.

Inferences

-"Not both. A-->/B". "A/B" MUST MUST MUST be written for one of the "out" spaces.

-"Pinching the board" on sequencing games. If you have a boxed item (AB for example) consider the restriction that places on other items. Must leave room for the boxed item.

-"Conditional Sequencing: forced in rule". If there are 2 "out" slots remaining, and you still have to place A-->B-->C, then C must be in.

-"Dual subcategory forced ordering". 2 subcategories and one of them never runs consecutively, maybe a forced ordering (every other).

-"In/Out Contrapositive". Always consider these. Can unlock an entire game.

Strategies

-Slow-->Smooth-->Fast

-Spend extra time with a confusing rule, get it right!

-Take note of possible distributions

-Finish translating the rules, then STOP. Is this game open or restricted? Should it be split? Where are the restrictions or major triggers?

-Focus on restrictions -- always

-When splitting, try to eliminate complicated rules

-Complete "if" questions first

-Trust your gb. Select an AC and move on. Circle and return if need be.

-With new rules, check the AC after each major inference (especially on MBT/F questions)

-MBF = (4) CBT and CBF = (4) MBT

-Wordy AC? Scan them and check the less wordy first.

-Be aware of corresponding wrong AC "mirrors"

-When drawing sub GBs, mark those that break the rules in some way otherwise you might try to use these for future questions

I am scheduled to write the January LSAT but am wondering if I should reschedule for March 30th. I wrote the November test and scored 157, my goal would be 160. I have been scoring between 157-162 for the last three months. I took a 3-week break after the test to finish final assignments and have been back at studying for the last two weeks. The problem is now that I leave for vacation for two weeks on Christmas Eve and when I get back will have less time to devote to studying with school and will only have three weeks until the test. Really not sure what to do. If I push it to March the test will be falling right at the end of my semester when things get super hectic.

Thoughts??

JY said if you don't how to do the exact game, print ten clean copy and finish it with control and speed.

The problem is, after i watched the video, i only need practice 2-5 copy right after the video to reach the time limit. And when should i finish the rest of the copys?

@BlindReviewer I think I'm seeing a pattern here.

Hey 7 sage Fam! This is a question I got wrong on my most recent PT. The last one I discussed with the very helpful @BlindReviewer shares some elements with this one (https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/18842/pt60-s1-q13-many-economists-claim-that-financial-rewards). Thing is, I took PT60 months ago, hence the maybe pattern. Help me work through some of the snares?

Similar elements:

Like the pt60 question, I ended up between 2 answer choices (D and E)

Analysis:

Conclusion: It is not the case that buying lottery tickets are an unwise investment

Reasoning: Because they share a characteristic with buying insurance--and that's generally considered a sound investment

Flaw: Assuming that this similarity is sufficient to guarantee the conclusion. It is not. Overestimating the strength of this characteristic and ignoring the differences between the two scenarios/context.

My problem: Both answers are discussing ways in which these two scenarios are different. So the task is to choose which difference is most relevant. But I can't figure out a compelling reason to eliminate D (in fact it's the choice I ended up going with. "Well-Being" in E made me nervous). Do you have any brilliant thoughts to share?

Thanks in advance!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-69-section-4-question-19/

Hey Everyone,

I have depended on this community for nearly a year now, and I need some advice/good mojo. After hitting my target score consistently, I retook the November LSAT and scored six points below my PT average again (162 September, 162 November). I was floored. Honestly expected to reach my average when I opened up my LSAT email, or at the very least done better than September. It is hard not to give in to feelings of inadequacy, but I'm trying my best to stay positive and focus on January. I do not have to attend law school this coming cycle, but I have already dedicated so much time on this test, moved back home/turned down a job to study, and have submitted applications (and paid fees) to apply for this cycle.

How should I approach January? I have 40-50 hours a week available to study for this test, but want to be very cognizant of burn-out. My apps are all submitted, however, so luckily I do not have to juggle admissions essays, addendums, etc.

Thanks ahead of time for any suggestions/advice y'all provide. I'm so lucky to have found this community a year ago.

-jmpm

_Conclusion: Modern literature can damage individuals who appropriate this attitude, as well as damage society at large.

Necessary Assumption: It is to the advantage of some individuals that they be concerned with contributing to the societal good._

Can someone help with this? If we negate it, we get: It is to the advantage of no one that they be concerned with contributing to the societal good. I don't see how this destroys the conclusion. This answer choice seems to equate damage incurred with the loss of an advantage. It seems to be saying that, when negated, if I get no advantage from X, then I can't be damaged by X (and thus, the conclusion fails).

But I feel like this is kind of a logical stretch. For example, suppose I gain no advantage from taking Route A or Route B to Destination C. The loss of Route B (if a street closed down) could still damage me in the sense that, while I previously had an option, now I have none.

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-46-section-3-question-15/

Hi, everyone,

I just discovered 7Sage and am so disappointed that I didn't hear of this sooner. I'm a full-time working mother, as well, so that's made things tricky -- but I devote about 3-4 hours a day of studying (not all of it intense, as I can get distracted if I'm honest). Anyway, I took the test without studying (ridiculous rookie error) way back last February and got a 150. In November, after Kaplan 2x (thinking this was not a wise move on my part), I got 155. I want at least a 160+, ideally. My dream would be a 165. I'm not looking for top tier schools or anything like that, just more that I want (need) a higher score to ensure that I can get some help in the financial department.... don't we all?

Currently, I do the best in LG (~9 to ~5), semi-OK in RC (about ~8 to ~5). In LR, I can get anywhere from ~14 to ~7; it honestly depends on if I get distracted or slow myself down (I used to be great at skipping and going back and having some time left over...).

So, what do you all think -- can I get enough out of this course even by starting now, to make a difference of 160+ by January 26th? Do I do the starter course option or the ultimate? I'm not necessarily looking for your assurance that "definitely yes you can do this" (because I know there's human error, etc., and it really depends on how well I manage my time/study) but I am looking for if you think the content in here is do-able in the time I have in terms of the area I need to focus on (LR). Also, if you think the Starter is what I can use or if I should go Ultimate+. Thanks! #help

Does anyone have a breakdown of the subdiscipline of social science passages on the LSATs?

(Background -- I am asking, as I double-majored in sociology/political science; I work in public policy; and so I am well-versed and find it easy to read and analyse Sociology/Political Science/History passages, but find archeology/linguistics/anthropology quite a bit more obtuse! And am wondering what my odds are for getting something within my zone of comfort!]\

I'm currently registered for the January 26th test but don't think I'll be ready. Can schools see if I change my test date? Does that show up as a "cancel"?

Also, it seems like it'd be slightly cheaper to do the "Change registration date" instead of canceling, getting the partial refund and then re-registering. Does that sound right? Thank you in advance.

Hey folks,

I know when using the question bank - for example with games - you are able to filter your search to look for specific game types (in/out, sequencing, etc.). I was wondering is there a way to do that for comparative passages?

I am starting to focus on studying comparative passages. Is there a list from easy - medium - hard, that folks could recommend?

Thanks in advance.

Hi all!

So long story short, I constantly find myself vacillating between answer choice b and answer choice c. I know what the right answer is supposed to be, but I'm trying to build the road to understanding it myself so that I can replicate it later. I came across an explanation that stated, "Note the introduction to this stimulus: “Many economists claim…” This is a common device used by the test to introduce an argument with which the author will disagree. Here the economists claim that financial rewards are the strongest incentive for choosing a job. The author disagrees with this assertion in the last sentence by concluding that these economists “overestimate” how important money is to choosing a job. To weaken the author’s argument, we need to strengthen the economists’ argument"

(Admin note: Please add a link when you quote from a page. https://forum.powerscore.com/lsat/viewtopic.php?t=5808)

This is the first time I've heard this (specifically the last sentence) and so I wanted to gut check with you all. Is this...actionable intelligence...or is it just something convenient made up to explain this person's choice?

Thanks!

Admin note: edited title.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-60-section-1-question-13/

Just wondering when the november 2018 lsat will be posted on 7sage. I'd like to see how I did on each section ASAP, but I love 7sage's format to plug in all of my answers and see everything.

sorry if this has been answered already.

Hello,

Here is my analysis for question 17 in section 3 for prep test 72. This is a weaken question; therefore, I wanted to weaken the connection between the premises and the conclusion.

Argument Analysis:

Premises:

Individuals who get injured due to unsafe actions not only cause injury to themselves but also can put financial and emotional burdens on others who they are close with.

Conclusion:

The Government is vindicated in making actions that are considered risky to one’s health illegal, in order to guard other people’s interests.

Prephrase:

Just because something that could be injurious to one individual and that brings pain to their family is not grounds for outlawing it. Think about it this way, just because trampolines can cause you harm and make your family pay your hospital bills doesn’t mean that this is grounds to ban using them.

Answer Choices:

A. This supports the argument because it further justifies why it would feasible to implement the law. The reason is due to the fact that it shows how putting a burden on the people you have close ties to constitutes harm to oneself.

B. This doesn’t weaken because just because we have an obligation to not injure ourselves doesn’t mean that we won’t injure ourselves. For example, one may have an obligation to not eat their sister’s last piece of chocolate cake; however, is that obligation strong enough to prevent us from eating it? Probably not.

C. This strengthens because it meets the necessary condition of posing a financial burden to the family.

D. This weakens it entirely because entirely wipes out the evidence that the argument provided for the conclusion. If the evidence is not sufficient than the conclusion is not entirely justified to be true.

E. Again, just because you have an obligation doesn’t mean that it will guarantee that people won’t do it. The person could easily say, well this law will just affirm this obligation.

Honestly, I wish I hadn’t gotten this question wrong. I had originally picked B because I assumed that because one has an obligation to not do something that they won’t do it. But, how many obligations have we had that we have broken? Conversely, D shows that the evidence that the person gave does not completely bolster the argument for instituting the law.

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-72-section-3-question-17/

I been drilling the question types. Right now I am at MSS/MBT. However, I came across an error that was reoccuring with me in logic. What do you do when there's two group 4 indicators. For example in PT 10 S.1 People cannot be morally responsible for things over which they have no control. Would it be represented like this IF ~ C implies Not MR.

Admin note: edited title

guys, I am having a huge problem understanding negative/double negative/triple negative statements,

whether they are an answer choice or in stimulus of LR questions.

I can understand them, but it just takes me a long time. Is there any efficient way to turn them into positive statements so that I can understand what the OPPOSITE of them says so I can make sense of them? (remove the negative components)

Here's one of the simpler examples: No tax reduction package that would greatly inconvenience parents will be adopted this year.

The way that I can understand such a statement in my head is being getting rid of "NO" and replacing it with every tax reduction package that would greatly inconvenience parents will NOT be adopted this year.

Note: I am not having trouble NEGATING statements (ex. NONE ---becomes ---> SOME)

PLEASE help!!

Hey, everyone! I am wanting some tips for practicing Logic Games. I am open to all suggestions from anyone and everyone.

Currently, I am working on the June 2017 LG section, and it is very hard. I thought I had a few skills down pack, but I may need a little more assistance. I’m primarily looking for tips on setting up a LG, recognizing different LGs and their questions, shorthand ways of writing rules, etc.

Let me know what you all have done to improve your LG score. Thank you!

I finished the section but was still bubbling when the head proctor called time and was called out by one of them. I deserve what happened and will try again in January. I’m just going to put my head down and work hard so that I won’t be lacking those last few seconds next time. Any one here have experience with this and can share some insight?

Has anyone used this book and found it useful? I do have 7sage ultimate and have completed the CC but am still struggling with LR. My LR scores have gone down post-CC, and I am really just looking for something else to help boost my LR. I also have the LSAT trainer and find some of the material useful but most of it not.

Thanks in advance.

I wanted to share tis video with everyone. A friend of mine sent it to me as a joke, but I quickly thought of RC. Hope you are able to see the video and get a quick laugh.

https://www.facebook.com/505402872831692/videos/744256855612958/

Based on the LR problems I'm getting wrong (Weakening/Strengthening, Necessary Assumption, MSS, etc.) I think I'm having difficulty understanding support. Or at least understanding it concretely. For example with weaken questions, I know that I can't weaken the premises or the conclusion, and I know the "right" questions to ask (Even given these premises, the conclusion still doesn't necessarily follow because...) but unless the weaken question has causal or conditional reasoning it it, I'm not really sure how to approach it (aside from just kind of feeling it out). I have absolutely no problem finding the premises and conclusion and understanding which is which, or mapping out arguments. But the idea of support still feels kind of nebulous to me. If you have any ideas on how to make support more concrete, or suggestions on what made the concept click for you I'd really appreciate it!

Hey guys!

I gave the LSAT in November and exhausted all the recent test material while preparing. I want to try again in January and thus am looking for ideas to get more material to practice. The harder the better, because I feel like that's the only way I will not get flustered during the actual exam.

Do you all have any recommendations about books I could practice from, old tests that have questions that match the profile of the recent questions, etcetera that I can use?

Thanks!

I got 15 on RC 43 and I am not sure what I did or didn't do. It felt messed up.

What are some of your shockingly bad performances and why did you think that was?

Let me know.