#help

So here was my reasoning for this question, but I still couldn't quite fully understand why A is right and C and E are wrong:

A-- right because "people" includes "environmentalists", "fail to consider" includes "ignore", but I think that "tend to" means "most" (according to some tutors I have read/talked to) so how can we deduce that "most people" ignore?

B-- wrong because no evidence of one thing "outweighing" the other (it just says good stuff and bad stuff about satellites without actually balancing the two)

C-- wrong because, like B, we don't know if it is "largely" beneficial (aka more beneficial than it is negative) but I am still kinda stumped about the word "usually" here-- I initially rejected C because we don't know about what technology "usually" does in general, but this is also the reason why I rejected A (since A said "people tend to") and A ended up being right. Anyone have some better insight here?

D-- wrong because no evidence of the situation being "worse" (same reasoning as B )

E-- wrong because #1-- we don't know if it is "unforeseen" (but not sure about this reasoning because "fail to consider" can also include "unforeseen" ignorance of something), #2-- "often" is too strong (but not sure about this reasoning either because "often" only connotes frequency and not quantity like "most" according to the Powerscore LR Bible)

Any help/explanation here would really be appreciated on this tricky problem!

In LR, my worst question type by far is Sufficient Assumption questions. I know about the translations and the formulizing we need to do for that question type (as 7Sage/JY teaches us in the CC), but actually applying that while doing a convoluted question is very hard and it also takes up a ton of time, in that by the time I've selected the answer minutes have gone by. Sometimes I get confused while doing the translations and formula in my head as well.

As a result of all this, I end up getting a lot of the harder SA questions wrong. I can generally get the easier ones (1-3 dots on the difficulty bar) correct, but anything past that I almost always have trouble.

What can I do to improve on SA questions?

Hi all.

I know countless threads have been done on this topic, but I need a space to just kind of rant and get practical advice.

I have been studying for this test for who knows how long at this point. My biggest weakness is by far logic games. I completed the entire CC, took no short cuts in drills, etc., and I still can't zero out or get close to -3 on games. I foolproof, watch tutorials when I've missed games, and I still can't perform when I take PT's! For a while, I was consistently getting -5 or -6 when I would PT, and this past month I have been getting -8 to -9, as I was when I first started studying. Maybe the recent change (now PTing the PT's in the 70s) is causing this recent shift. When I take the test, I breeze through the first two games, but can't sufficiently work through the 3rd and 4th games. I figure out the game type, and I can see how rules interact with each other, but when I move to the questions, I can't work through them and completely blow it.

My main question is: what the heck do I need to do to get my scores up? I am so frustrated with this section, because it seems so intuitive and learnable, and after foolproofing sections, I always feel so dumb for having missed any in the first place.

P.S. I'm sitting for the July test, so I have a couple of months.

Hey everyone,

I've been watching literally ALL the conditional reasoning videos, beginner and advanced, and I seem to be missing something key that I can't find in the videos. He keeps talking about diagramming "or" using a "negate the sufficient" rule. Can someone direct me towards those videos or a relevant thread? I'm going crazy looking for it and I know it's just a little piece that I'm missing when diagramming in/out games!

Much thanks!

#help!

Greetings all! I've gotten really good at identifying and parsing conditional statements... I can quickly identify the indicator group and from there the rest is history. However, for whatever reason, I'm really struggling with chaining the statements together. On the syllabus examples, the Game of Thrones prompt really threw me for a loop and I ended up with way more possibilities that weren't addressed in the explanation. This is so frustrating because I've gained so much ground but ultimately know that if I cant combine the statements then I'm really not that much better off on any LG.

Im specifically struggling with understanding whether or not in an actual scenario the implicit contrapositive can always be applied. Obviously, the rule says it can, but I'm getting the feeling that practically you shouldn't always assume so. My intuition is getting it...

Does anyone else struggle with this? Is there any more material that I'm missing to better explain and practice chaining? Do I need to just do more and more practice LGs and see where I improve? Thanks!

I cannot find fault with A or E. Both seem to fit the pattern of reasoning. E seems to be more applicable, but that doesn't make A wrong. Any help appreciated!!

#help #help

Hi,

This question had really tricky answer choices. I was wondering:

How can A be the answer when the word "ignore," according to the dictionary definition and my past LSAT experience, means that the person intentionally disregarded the negative environmental effects of the satellites, and "fail to consider" (in the stimulus) doesn't seem to have this same meaning?

How can A be the answer when "tend to" means "most", and it seems like we don't have enough evidence to make that deduction? After all, C is wrong because "usually" means "most," so why doesn't this apply to A?

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Hi Everyone! I attended the skipping webinar yesterday which I must say, was SUPER helpful! But I am curious to know how do people generally BR RC?

My strategy is this:

Is this the wrong or right way of BRing RC? I am so confused!

Thank you in advance!!

#help

Hi,

This was a very difficult question. I found myself stuck between A and B, and I still don't understand how one is supposed to deduce that the correct answer here was B.

Any #help would be really appreciated!

Hi guys,

It looks like some people, particularly someone like Nicole Hopkins, has a very specific annotation strategy on the paper LSAT. I'm trying to incorporate something like that for myself, but on the digital LSAT platform.

I have been going at it without annotating at all, but just writing down the low-res summaries of each paragraph and the main point , structure, and tone before attacking the questions. I tend to get -5 to -6 on the RC section timed and want to go down to -2 to -3 range...

Does anyone have a digital annotation strategy that helped them significantly?

Hello everyone,

Hope you're finding a way to maximize your LSAT prep in quarantine!

Just wanted to share that @"Cant Get Right" and I will be hosting a webinar on skipping strategy this

Saturday, April 11th at 7:30pm EST

Several of you have been asking about skipping strategy and specifically about what worked for me here:

https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/21717/140s-to174-thank-you-7sage

@"Cant Get Right" was my tutor when I was grinding and learning how to apply this skipping strategy was key to maintaining a consistent score range in LR

If you're interested in learning what it is, we'd love to tell you about it!

We're in the midst of preparing for the webinar and will be sharing the link soon.

Hope to see you there!

EDIT:

ZOOM LINK: https://zoom.us/j/5033908804

I have a question regarding a potential "Most strongly supported" question that may have an answer choice with the inclusion of "always". For an example: Lets say that in a stimulus, it reads "I eat pies on Wednesdays." If one of the answer choices was-- I "always" eat pies on Wednesdays, would that be correct? Even if it "always" is not stated in the stimulus, should that be implied through appropriate reasoning?

Hi everyone,

I'm very inconsistent with Reading Comprehension and one of the main things I'm seeing is that I spend so much time dwelling on trap answer choices and end up wasting so much time and momentum. I've done lots of practice but for some reason I always end up with 2 answer choices and basically just guess between the two. Any tips?

For those who are supplementing their 7Sage Prep with The Loophole by Ellen Cassidy, our study group is going to be reviewing Prep Test 75 section 1 using this method. We will be sharing our translations on Tuesday 4/7 and then we are planning to going over the translations and CLIR as a group on Wednesday 5 pm Eastern time.

Here is the link to join our group:

https://groupme.com/join_group/57415632/QdTu0vK9

Both study sessions are added to the calendar and we will also be adding the Zoom link and Google drive link there as well.

Hopefully, this will be the first of multiple sessions. In addition, we have been having BR sessions weekly for various prep tests so if you are looking to improve your LR understanding or hoping to take the LSAT in the near future we would love for you to join us. All levels of prep are welcome, we also have a sub group for people still taking the CC.

Thanks to 7SAGE for helping me improve with the games. Took the Feb 2020 LSAT and forgot to post this. GPA is around a 3.78 at the moment (1 semester left). Thoughts on what schools I'm in range for? Thanks!

Any tips? Pleaaaaaase

On a recent PT I put so much energy and effort into the first 3 passages so maybe that's why- but I totally died by the 4th passage and just guessed everything. I was also running out of time.. how do I get faster and better? And stay alert through all of them.

Hey guys quick question about going through logic games. For those that fullproofed, did you do every game from 1-35, and did you do all of that before you started taking timed pt's or after a few pt's where you were struggling on the games? Just started the logic game curriculum and I am trying to plan out my studying and see if anyone had recommendations about how to go about it. Thanks in advance for your help!

I'm trying to make sure I keep certain LR topics fresh and also work on ones I struggle with most. I am completing the CC question sets as I move along through the sections.

What can I use to "drill" certain questions after I complete the CC question sets?

What is the best way to study for LR? Currently, while I BR, I type out the conclusion, premise, and why each AC except one is wrong. Any tips? What worked well for you?

How do you review LR questions that you got wrong?

What is the difference between LR questions in the 70's and 80's compared to earlier PTs?

For example, is it that recent LR questions hinge on really subtle interpretations of words, like conflating "method" and "reason" and these two words are spaced far apart in the paragraph? Is it picking up on really subtle flaws? Did the old tests just test your basic understanding of logic and not really test your ability to hunt for subtlety?

I ask because I did really well in PT 60, then did 5x worse in a pt from the 80s. This is pretty consistent too for LR. Why?

Hi, over the past year or so I've constantly been updating my blind review template based on what instruction from tutors and mentors, from the 7Sage CC, from The Loophole, from all-star sages and also based on what I find benefits me most when I BR a question.

If you have any questions or suggestions I'd love to hear them! Hope this benefits you.

PT, Q, Q type:

The best way to do these questions is:

Motto for Q type:

Translation Drill (after looking at the stim once, process the information and repeat it in abbreviated form here.):

Conclusion Premises Background info:

Referential phrasing:

Cookie Cutter logical layout (Method of Reasoning and structure):

Flaw:

My Prediction / prephrase:

Blind Review (BR) and Answer Choices (ACs) - why is the AC right? Why wrong?

Test writer review (TWR) – Why is this AC on the test in the first place? What is the trap set for this wrong AC? Who are they trying to fool?

Seek mastery

A.

TWR.

B.

TWR.

C.

TWR.

D.

TWR.

E.

TWR.

Teach a parallel question:

Takeaways:

When I first started logic games, making inferences looked like some sort of voo doo that I would never quite get. I brute forced games that should have been split, I tried to split games that had way too many possibilities and ran out of time because I was trying to make 6 game boards. I have often forgotten to circle the floater or even think about how it can help answer questions or make inferences. If this sounds like you, I am writing this post primarily for you.

Understanding the power of the floater is helpful for multiple situations:

You are learning logic games and having trouble seeing inferences

You didn’t split the game or the game is open ended

You are looking at a question and don’t see any obvious inferences, so you trying to brute force the answer choices. Understanding the power of the floater will help you be smarter about which answer choices to test.

Here is how the floater (s) can help you:

You have a “ Could be True” question

Sequencing Example: Who could be the 4th person in line? Because your floater should be able to go anywhere, if you see the floater as one of your answer choices, try placing the floater in that 4th position first in a mini diagram and see if it works.

In and Out Game: If you have a true floater, it should be able to go into either the In or Out group. So, if you have a question asking you which variable can go into the In Group and you see your floater showing up as an answer choice, this should be the first answer choice you try.

Grouping: Your floater should be able to go into any group so if you have a question asking you which variable could go into Group C, try your floater first.

You have Must be true question:

Sequencing Example: If you see your floater listed in the answer choices, Eliminate, you know that your floater can go in more positions than just 4th position for example, because there is no rules attached to it.

In and Out Game:

If you have a true floater it should be able to go into either of the groups. If you see your floater in the answer choices, don’t check it.

Grouping Game:

Your floater doesn’t have to be in any specific group, eliminate any answer choice regarding this.

You have a Must be False Question:

Sequencing Example: Who can’t be the 4th person in line?

If you see the floater in one of the answer choices, this should be the last answer choice you try. Remember, your floater should be able to go anywhere so it is highly unlikely the answer to the question, unless it has been eliminated by another rule such a large block or sequencing chain.

In and Out Game:

If you have a floater it should be able to go into either group so if the question is asking who can’t go into the In group, you should skip checking any answer choices involving your floater.

Grouping:

Your floater should be able to go into any group so don’t check any answer choices involving your floater for a question stem that asks you something like who can’t go into Group C?

You have a hypothetical question where your floater has been placed

Sequencing example: If H is 4th, what must be true?

Since H was your floater and has now been placed, do you have any large blocks or variables that can’t go together? Check to see if placing your floater has now limited the block (s) or variables that need to be seperated.

In and Out Game:

You have a limited number of variables so when something has been placed it limits the possibility of other variables. This is particularly true in In and Out Games with limited distribution possibilities. For example, if you have a game where you can have a max of three variable in the In Group, you already had a variable in the In Group and now you have placed your floater into the In Group, you know that your block can’t go into the In Group because you only have one spot left.

As a second example, you have placed your floater into the Out Group which is now full, you now know that all of other variables which haven’t been placed yet are now in the Out Group.

Grouping Game:

If the groups are open ended placing your variable may not help you much but if you have a game with limited distribution and restrictive rules, than the floater may just be the key to the inference the question wants you to make.

For example: You have 3 groups A, B, C Each Group can have a maximum of two variables. You have just placed your floater into Group A, and Group A is now full because another variable had already been placed into it based on another rule. You know that you need to seperate R and S. R has been placed into Group B. This pushes out the inference that S must be placed into Group 3.

You have a hypothetical question involving a large block or variables that need to be seperated

Sequencing example: A question like this may severely limit the possibilities of your floater. This is particularly true when considered in conjunction with other rules of the game like blocks, variables that can’t go together or sequences. For a question like this, create a mini diagram and place your large block or variables. Check out how this impacts other variables in the game. Chances are that your floater is now restricted. While, this won’t always turn out to be the answer choice itself, noticing this can help you find the inference the question is asking you about.

In and Out Game:

If there is a limited number of positions, this makes it harder to separate variables that can’t go together. When you seperate variables that can’t go together or place variables that have to go together, your possibilities to distribute the remaining variables may become severely more limited.

Grouping Game:

If you have placed variables that need to go together or separated variables that can’t go together, your floater likely has more limited distribution possibilities, especially if your groups have limited distribution possibilities.

You have more than one floater:

Your floaters are interchangeable. If C and T are your floaters these are essentially the same answer choice.

If you have any question that you see both your floaters show up as answer choices, you can eliminate both answer choices. There is only one right answer.

Hi guys,

For RC, I'm just wondering whether any 170+ scorers employ a skipping strategy commonly seen in LR, where you do 10 questions in 10 minutes and15 questions in 15 minutes to have 10 minutes left over to do a second pass on 3-5 questions that were skipped on purpose?

I find that this technique really helps me prioritize my time in LR sections and think it may also benefit me in RC. I realize that because of the reading time can vary for each passage on RC, that this technique may have to be a bit different than LR. But I do notice that when I get to the last passage with ~ 10 minutes left, I tend to freak out a bit and it becomes difficult to finish on time.

Thanks!

The videos for In/Out Grouping Question 1 Game Setup and Questions are missing

I'd like to drill the inference valid argument relationships, specifically the most/some's, because the advanced drill really had me struggling to draw inferences quickly. I've made flashcards but even that isn't enough. Any resources or drills would be appreciated!

If I am really struggling with the most advanced weakening questions should I stay on the lesson until I am able to perform better or should I move on to the next lesson in the schedule and come back to weakening questions later.

Thanks