Hey 7 Sage community,

I have been trying to improve my timing strategies in LR overall but one thing I noticed I've been doing during timed section runs is skipping the sufficient assumption questions that show up deep in the section that often incorporate a few conditional statements/ formal logic. Usually during BR, I get them correct but I noticed during timed pressure my nerves kick in when I realize I'll have to diagram it all and I have other questions to do. (Same usually applies for certain par/par-flaw)

I've been working on getting more comfortable with cookie cutter argument structures and diagramming but I was wondering what else I could do to build more confidence.

I was also curious what practical steps I could take to get to the level of not having to diagram at all.

Do top scorers just see it all in their heads? It gets really hard for me to keep track of everything in terms of comprehension until I can see the structure laid out in lawgic.

I can't seem to figure out a way to keep these questions under 2 minutes and its been frustrating. I'd love to turn these into a strength as I like how they can be reliable points.

I would appreciate any insight.

Thank you!!

Sometimes scoring 5/5 without BR

Sometimes scoring 3/5 with BR or

5/5 with BR

My track record for MSS are all over the place and I can't find the underlying theme or thread for why I can't be consistent in my scores.

I found that with MP questions I was able to figure it out and find a strategy that worked but are there any tips on this?

I think I'm just not understanding MSS..

(even though I've learned that the stimulus holds the premise and the answer choice holds the conclusion)

I'm concerned - any thoughts anyone ? :$

Hi,

I understand why the answer here is B (because this shows that it is possible that the person knew Drew well and sent Drew roses to piss him off), but I can not quite pinpoint why A is wrong. Most traditional explanations for why A is wrong include the line of reasoning that it is perfectly possible that "most" people may not include the person that sent roses to Drew; but how is this line of reasoning consistent with B being correct? After all, it is also perfectly possible that "some" of the people who send flowers for reasons other to please may not be the person who sent the roses to Drew.

Thus, I feel that there should be a better explanation for why A is wrong, but I have trouble pinpointing it in my head.

Any #help would be appreciated!

Thanks!

Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-31-section-2-question-19/

Hi guys,

I feel like I have a good grasp of how to improve in the LG and LR sections, but not necessarily the RC section. I'm a scientist so the science passages are quite easy for me. I know that I need to improve on art and law passages.

What I have been doing:

So far, I have been printing off art and law RC sections, doing them individually timed (8.5 min) and BR'ing them right away from PT 36 - 41. I've been working on developing my skipping strategy more, where on my first pass I note any questions to return to on my second pass. I tend to have a mix of questions to return to, some are the ones that I nailed down to 2 ACs and need to choose the one, but some are the ones that I read all ACs and just had no clue, and some are the ones that I needed to refer back to the passage and would take a bit of time to do so. At the same time, I try to identify any questions to be my "loser" and try to focus the remainder of my time on questions that I can get right. I just started developing this more consciously on both LR and RC.

My reading time for the passage is generally between 2.5 - 3.5 minutes. I tend to get -1 or -2 wrong per passage, which would be -4 to -8 in the RC section. Not good enough for what I want... I seem to struggle a bit with inference and most strongly supported type questions.

How do you think I should structure my studying to go forward? I am not completely certain that just doing more passages with thorough blind review will help improve my score. My goal is to try and get consistently -4 per RC section or better.

Hi,

Does anyone know what LSAT's RC sections mean by the word "issue" (ie PT30.S3.Q25 mentions "issues surrounding a study are discussed")? Asking because "issue" could have 2 meanings-- topic or a point of disagreement, both of which I feel could be relevant in RC.

#help

Thanks!

Hi,

Based on what I have read from answer explanations so far, this logical reasoning question seems to break the "cardinal rule" of there only being one truly right answer because both A and B here seem to strengthen the stimulus-- A just happens to strengthen it more, and thus is the right answer. Does anyone have a better explanation for why B is wrong?

Thanks!

#help

Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-30-section-4-question-20/

Hello JY

I had a q regarding LR. What if we have a different reasoning to why an answer is correct than the one you mention in your video but still get the right answer choice? Does that mean we have thought about it incorrectly and should re-wire our brains to think differently?

e.g.

Practice test 7, S3 Q21 - I have the same reasoning another student posted, quoted below:

"B) Yes! This shows that we do not NEED to raise cow on grain – so even if the grain yield is going down, we can still raise them on grass – which renders it possibly less morally unacceptable"

But this wasn't the reasoning you used .. so are we incorrect for picking the answer on that basis?

(and generally should we adapt our reasoning to yours? This isn't the first scenario I encounter like this)

If anyone else wants to chime in, more than welcome ! :D

In Logical Reasoning sections, LSAC loves to test us on how we interpret studies. For example, a study is described, a conclusion is drawn, and it becomes our job to evaluate how well the study supports the conclusion. These questions are common and come in the form of: flaw, strengthening, weakening, necessary assumption, sufficient assumption, and if they are feeling really ambitious: resolve reconcile questions.

These questions mostly turn on how well the study is controlled. This video below takes you through what it means for an experiment to be controlled and why it is fundamental to "good" science.

Next time you do an LR section, notice how much the controlled experiment comes up, and how you must understand what makes it better or worse!

Hi everyone,

Hard question here: can anyone explain why answer choice A is completely incorrect? I can see how, based on the passage, "standardizing traditional languages" is "sometimes unnecessary" from lines 39-42, but I still can not find textual evidence for how "standardizing traditional languages requires arbitrary choices". The rhetorical question raised in lines 36-38 express arbitrariness, but I don't understand how we were supposed to know that this arbitrariness was "required" by standardization. No need to explain B,C,D, and E.

Thanks!

#help

Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-29-section-2-passage-2-questions/

Hi everyone,

This might sound like a dumb question, but would anyone be able to explain why C is wrong in this question?

I thought C could be correct here because:

Thus, while I understood why the answer was A (since "all but impossible" = very difficult to make possible), I had trouble fully eliminating answer choice C because I thought that since we understood the obstacle that "sometimes" prevented us from perfectly converting oral language to written language (aka "exact match"), taking away that obstacle should make that goal "attainable".

Any #help would be appreciated!

Thanks!

Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-29-section-2-passage-2-questions/

Hi,

I am totally stuck here between B and C. Can anyone help explain why C is wrong and B is right?

#help

Thanks!

Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-29-section-2-passage-2-questions/

I'm doing the RC problem sets of the core curriculum currently and it seems like the RC passages are taking me a while. For passages that are 5 questions it takes me 10 minutes to complete that passage, and for passages that are 7-8 questions it usually takes me 15 minutes to complete.

How do I get faster at this? And what is a good time to aim for for each passage?

Hey everyone,

I been looking at this argument for a couple days and can't find the flaw. Can someone please help me find it. Thank you.

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-17-section-2-question-15/

Hello! This is my first time posting here, I am feeling shy but thank you in advance for any advice you may give!

I've been taking some full PTs as well as using them as problem sets and I find myself constantly overthinking LR questions during BR. I'll get the answer right timed, but when I'm untimed I often linger and fall for the trap answer. I feel like this happens more often in the easier questions too than in the more difficult ones, so I'm stumped lol. I'd greatly appreciate any tips on where to begin in kicking this bad habit. I'm taking the test in July and LR is my weakest section. I'll also be re-reviewing the CC but there's little consistency in which question types I miss so it's not easy to pinpoint.

Thank you and I hope everyone is studying the best they can while prioritizing personal safety in our current climate.

Hi everyone, at what point to you map things out? I have gone through a good chunk of the CC (now at more MBT questions) and I answer every question in my head using intuition, not mapping them out, and get most correct. I'm afraid if I map them out using lawgic that this will take me too much time. If I am getting most questions right, should I stick with my intuition or start mapping them out? I have reviewed logic a few times, but it just isn't clicking.

Hey guys, I had a difficult time eliminating answer choice C on this one. I do understand why A is correct but I can't 100% eliminate C. Explanations I've come across indicate that C just restates what was already stated in the premises, but I still see some slight gaps that C would seem to fill in, so I'm going to take a stab at what I think is going on here, and was hoping I could get some feedback as to whether there's more to add to my explanation or to confirm that it is sufficient. So here it is:

Basically, this is a sufficient/psuedo sufficient assumption question.

The argument is as follows:

Conclusion:

4) What is relevant is not symbolism (not S) but what it directly presents (DP). (R--->not S and DP)

Analysis:

So I see that symbolism is a new term in the conclusion, and I would like to get from R-->not S). I know from "2)" that R-->not E, so I see that adding in not E-->not S would allow the portion of the conclusion, R--->not S to follow via R-->not E-->not S. So that makes sense for A being correct.

However, when I ready the conclusion: "What is really aesthetically relevant, therefore, is not what a painting symbolizes, but what it directly presents to experience," I ignored what was in between the commas and was looking to justify the conclusion, "What is really aesthetically relevant, therefore, is what it directly presents to experience." So I focused on that.

Looking back at the premises, I saw from "1)" that paying attention necessitates intrinsic properties and from "3)" that paying attention also necessitates looking at what is directly presented. But the premises never explicitly connected intrinsic properties to that which is directly presented; it was simply implied.

So going back to the conclusion -- which I qualified thinking that the middle (not S) was extraneous -- I thought that in order to conclude, "What is relevant is what is directly presented (R-->DP), I figured why not make the intrinsic/directly presented connection explicit? So I plugged answer choice C) Relevant-->Intrinsic, leading to (R-->Intrinsic)--->DP.

Where I think I might have gone wrong:

Plugging in Relevant-->Intrinsic still leaves the the original gap between Intrinsic and Directly Presented open. Also, Was answer C already stated in Premise 2) as E-->not R, as the contrapositive of R-->Intrinsic?

The way I was supposed to have thought about it?:

Paying attention leads to looking at only intrinsic properties and paying attention involves only looking at what is directly presented, so there's no leap in concluding that intrinsic properties involve what is directly presented. So it adds nothing to the part of the conclusion that what is Relevant are only instrinsic properties.

However, connecting Relevant to whatever is not symbolic is an open gap that never connected Extrinsic properties to being symbolic and hence answer choice A) making this explicit completely (or almost entirely in the case of this being psuedo-sufficient) bridges the gap.

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-28-section-1-question-24/

Has anyone gotten their results yet?

When it comes to necessary/sufficient assumption questions, I used to intuitively get to the right answer. As I am now forcing myself to apply consistent process, I am a bit confused as to how the rules apply. I understand that as a rule of thumb, question stems that feature 'depend on' require necessary assumptions, and those featuring 'properly drawn' require sufficient assumptions. I just wonder where do sufficient-and-necessary assumptions belong? #help#

My blind review for LR is around ~20-23 correct. My average for timed LR is about +17/19. When I took Prep Test 36, I scored 12/26 (raw) and 13/26 (BR). I'm currently reviewing the section and realizing that I'm still stumped on a lot of these questions. This section particularly seems much more difficult to me than any of the previous LR sections I've done (and I've done a lot). I recently read that Test 36 LR 1 is considered one of the more difficult LR sections but I'm wondering if anyone else has had similar experiences with this section?

I'm going to continue to review the video explanations for it and read up on the explanations for as long as I have to in order to gain full understanding. I'm just shocked that I got +12, I feel like this is not representative of how I normally perform. Initially, I thought maybe I was just nervous, but now that I'm looking at the questions, I'm realizing this section is just confusing to me for some reason.

Thoughts?

https://www.reddit.com/r/LSAT/comments/71zteo/hardest_most_difficult_lsat_sections_ever_listed/

Hi guys,

I just thoroughly analyzed my June 2007 timed PT (my first timed full PT). I went -3 in one section and -4 in other LR section.

It looks like for maybe about 5 of the 7 questions I got wrong, I got them wrong timed because I missed a key word or distinction from the stimulus or the answer choice.

How would I go about addressing this? I'm already planning on taking the 5 top priority question types and drilling them and doing a confidence drill to see if I can shave off some time in the questions that I was underconfident on. I ended up circling around 14 questions per section for BR and probably about 5 questions per section did not need to be BRed (lack of confidence),where I got those right the first and during BR. If I don't go back to these 5 questions per section, perhaps that will give me more time to focus and look for the missed key word or distinction for the 5 out of 7 questions I got wrong.

Thoughts? Thanks!

Hi guys,

I just finished the CC and took a diagnostic June 2007 timed PT. 160 timed and 170 - 174 BR. My target is 172 - 175.

I also just finished BR'ing, watching the videos, and doing some careful analysis. One question that I am still having trouble on is the following:

I usually do a first pass of an LR section in 25 minutes. That leaves me 10 minutes to go back to questions that I circled to try and answer them before the time is up. At this point, I usually have about 3 questions unanswered and probably about 10 total questions that I circled for BR.

My question is... after my first pass, when I have 10 minutes left, how do I know which exact question to turn to for maximum benefit? I would assume that it would be the lowest hanging fruits. So far, I've just been going back to the first circled question and working my way up.

Thank you!

Can someone help diagram the question below? I'm having a lot of trouble wrapping my head around it.

Manuscripts written by the first time authors generally do not get serious attention by publishers except when these authors happen to be celebrities. My manuscript is unlikely to be taken seriously by the publishers for I am a first time author who is not a celeb.

I diagrammed "except" the same way I would diagram "unless".

not CELEB --> FIRST TIME AU OR not SERIOUS ATTN

When I looked this up, the CORRECT diagram was:

not CELEB --> not FIRST TIME AU OR not SERIOUS ATTN

My first question, Why is it: not FIRST TIME AU?

Second, I'm having trouble diagramming the parallel argument below for the same reasons:

"Fruit salad that contains bananas is ordinarily a boring dish unless it contains two or more exotic fruits. This fruit salad has bands in it, and the only exotic fruit is a guava."

I diagrammed this as follows:

not TWO OR MORE --> contains bananas OR boring

But the correct way to diagram it is:

not TWO OR MORE --> not contains bananas OR boring

Why?

I thought I understood the direction of argument lesson but I just took a timed section and found myself going back and forth when I saw MSS questions. I kept getting confused on whether or not I should look for the MP or a answer choice that strengthened the argument, can someone explain?

I am currently struggling to move past the CC lessons on valid argument forms. With the use of flashcards, I have been able to memorize what the abstract form of each valid argument form looks like. For example, if I am given the premise A-->B and the conclusion B some C, I automatically know that the missing premise needed to restore this argument to validity is A --> C. However, when I see this same valid form in English as opposed to logic I compltely freeze. I have tried writing out my own English statements for each of the valid argument forms. Doing this helped me see how cookie-cutter the valid argument forms are. However, I feel like once I see these argument forms on the LSAT it will not be as cookie-cutter. For example, I recently realized that when I was writing out my own English statements I had failed to take into account that the fact that you can move around premises and still get a valid argument form. For example:

Premise 1: O→K

Premise 2: J‑m→O

Conclusion: J‑m→K

By simply looking at this argument's abstract form, I know that it's a valid argument. It embodies valid argument 5. In the example above, A‑m→B was switched into premise 2 and B→C was switched into premise 1. However, when I see this switch being applied in English, my brain turns into mush. Continuing with the example from above, the English translation would sound something like:

All octopuses are kind. Most people named James are octopuses. Most people named James are kind.

Octopuses= O

Kind=K

James=J

Right??

I am aware that on the LSAT, the topics in the stimulus questions that require your understanding of validity are going to be a lot more challenging. That's why I am looking to get some insight in terms of how to solve this issue. I really appreciate your time!

We will be hosting a Blind Review Session for the first Logical Reasoning Section of Prep Test 66 on Sunday March 15th at 3:00 pm Pacific Coast (6:00 pm East Coast).

This will be a peer lead review and we will be going over flagged questions chosen by the group. Prior to the blind review session please complete Prep Test 66, and complete your own blind review. Do Not check your answers. We will be focusing on process, understanding and strategy.

The link to join is below:

https://join.skype.com/HW01DVXTluPk

Note: You do not need to join our study group or preparing for the June Test to join this review session, all levels are welcomed