Discussions

LSAT

New post

175 posts in the last 30 days

Would it be safe to almost immediately disregard conditional statements as a correct AC in MC questions? I haven't come across a conclusion that is a conditional statement since those would always be premises leading to some conclusion? Does anyone have a counter-example that disproves this?

Thank you!

0
User Avatar
•

Last comment monday, apr 22 2019

cclarez61

PT72.S3.Q6 - gamma ray bursts

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-72-section-3-question-06/

I am having such a tough time on this question. I have written out my thinking, watched the explanation a few times and I am still stumped by this question. Answer C is giving me trouble.

The goal here is to support the author's conclusion that the duration being long and everything else being short is not enough to classify the unusual GRB dichotomously. Two assumptions are being made here: 1) that the long duration is not enough to classify it as long, and 2) having almost everything short is not enough to classify it as short.

With B, I can clearly see now that this answer denies assumption #1. The duration being long would sometimes allow one to classify it as such. This would weaken the argument.

However, C states that ONE instance of a "long" property is less important than other "short" properties.. Wouldn't this deny the assumption #2? If one out of all the number of properties is a long duration and this duration is not as important as those short ones, then why would this answer help the conclusion? By explaining that duration is lower in importance along with the fact that it's severely outnumbered by short properties, the answer seems like it's implying that a "short" classification would be more fitting for this GRB. I do see the words "more important," but a short property that is important surly is more important than a long property that is low/not important.

Any thoughts on this question would be extremely helpful, thank you.

0

Does anyone have advice on how to actually apply what you're learning from specific questions to similar questions on other tests? I feel that I really do have a grasp on the CC, I understand conditional logic, etc. And when I get a question wrong, I'll go to the explanation and it makes sense to me. But then I take my next PT and I'm consistently missing Flaw, RRE, and Para questions (among many others). How can I best learn from drills and reviews of PTs? Is there some other study method that I'm missing? I'm really sick of getting these questions wrong.

I've heard a lot of advice about taking notes, but I feel that my notes are all specific to the question...

Thank you!

0

One of the biggest issues I'm having at breaking the 173 barrier is that my LR scores haven't improved in like 6 months. I am still stuck at a –3 section average, though of course I fluctuate, sometimes I get –5s and sometimes I score –1s. However, I notice that the majority of mistakes I make are ones where I was either careless and lost focus, or where I was down to 2 ACs and chose the wrong one. Technically, if I could eliminate those errors I think I could consistently score -1 per section.

I've tried a bunch of things to eliminate these mistakes (e.g., doing untimed LR sections, BRing almost every question, slowing down on tough questions, skipping questions, even meditating to be in a clearer state of mind, etc.) but none of them have worked to consistently improve scores.

I was wondering how some of your were able to overcome a plateau in LR. What should I do? Any advice would be welcome, and thank you to anyone who responds!

3

Hey 7Sagers,

Here's the official March 2019 LSAT Discussion Thread.

**Please keep all discussions of the March 2019 LSAT here!**(/red)

Rules:

✅ You can identify experimental sections. 🙆‍♀️

You can say things such as the following:

  • “I had two LGs! Was the LG with "flowers" real or experimental?”

  • “I had two RCs! Was the section that starts with the honeybee passage real?”

  • “I had three LRs! Does anyone know if the first LR section with the goose question is real?”

    • ❌ You can't discuss specific questions. 🙅‍♂️

    You CANNOT say things such as the following:

  • “Hey, the 3rd LG was sequencing and the last one was In/Out, right?” (Don't mention the game type)

  • “The last question in the first LR section was a lawgic heavy MBT! Was the answer (B)?” (Don't mention the question type or ask what the answer was)

  • “What was the answer for the last question of RC? I think it was an inference question? Was the answer (C)?” (Don't mention the question type or ask what the answer was)

    • Have fun discussing!

    1

    Hi I have taken LSAT twice so far..

    First last November, I scored 163

    This March I received 168..

    I am hoping for another 5 point score improvement in my third and final LSAT score

    I will apply to law schools this cycle

    I am not studying LSAT right now because of uni and will resume when the semester is over in late June..

    When do you recommend I take my next test?

    Would September be too early/late?

    Any advice would be appreciated.

    0
    User Avatar
    •

    Last comment saturday, apr 20 2019

    briannaayhoward896

    Is September too soon?

    Hello,

    I am currently working full-time as a conflicts analyst at a well-known law firm and studying for the LSAT. I started my LSAT study last July and took the September exam. I scored horribly (138). I completely under-estimated the time and hard work it takes to really master the LSAT. After taking a 4 month break from studying, I began to study again in January of this year. I am currently scoring in the high 140's now and would like to get to the low 160's if possible. I signed up for the June test, anticipating that I would be ready, however, I, once again, under-estimated the time frame to study for the LSAT. I am now almost one month away from the June LSAT and I know I cannot improve 15+ points within 4-6 weeks, all while working full-time. Given this, I was considering taking the September LSAT, and I wanted to know if this seems like a good time frame? I am currently taking about 1-2 PT's a week and going over ways to improve on my LR/RC sections. I have improved on my LG's section (from -10 to -3). I have the hardest time with LR/RC.

    All in all, I just want to know if the September test would be a good time for me to take the LSAT. I do not want to take the exam again, my gpa is decent, and I'm not stern on getting into a T14 school, I just want to make sure I get into a decent school with as much of an opportunity for scholarship.

    0
    User Avatar
    •

    Last comment wednesday, apr 17 2019

    christine810

    bi-conditionals and in/out games

    Say you have premise that doesn't specifically identify whether members are in or out, but is a bi-conditional like:

    "Wharton serves on a different committee than the one Zhu serves on"

    How do you decide which side to negate? It ends up having consequences when you chain up and try to find "or" and "not both" inferences with other members. I'm so confused.

    0
    User Avatar
    •

    Last comment sunday, apr 14 2019

    304694

    HOLY COW

    77.3. - Game 3 is a doozy! I was getting into a better groove with timed LG and then...this one. Holla if you hear me.

    0

    I got this hopelessly wrong. Only after some quite extensive reviewing, I was able to put the explanation together. Anyone who has done this problem before please review my reasoning and add to it.

    #help

    PP --> Money

    D --> EqualPP

    D --> PP --> Money

    /money

    /D

    A - I didn't see any conjunctions in the stimulus

    B -

    Bookstore --> money

    LoveBooks

    BooksExpensive

    ---------------

    /money

    C -

    Hist-Fic --> accuracy

    Sci-Fic --> /accuracy

    ----------------

    Hist-Scifi --> Difficult

    D - Sometimes and difficult to predict, can eliminate this

    E -

    GoodHealth --> Exercise

    Exercise --> AdequateTime

    -------------------------------------

    GoodHealth --> Exercise --> AdequateTime

    /Adequatetime

    ------------------------------------

    /Goodhealth

    This parallels.

    0

    Hi!

    I am going through MBT and MSS questions because they seem to be my biggest weakness. I came across this question while drilling and I contended between (B) and (E). I ultimately chose (B) and again in BR.

    I thought the "everyone sometimes acts in ways that are..." could be considered as "commonly performed actions", and thought (B) was regarding to those actions that occur as a result of treatment as infants and therefore, people are not morally responsible.

    I understand why (E) is correct - within the scope of "everyone" includes adults, therefore adults are not responsible for every actions (because there could be those actions they perform as a consequence of treatments they received as infants) - but I can't exactly pinpoint why (B) is wrong.

    It would be extremely helpful and greatly appreciated if someone could shed some light on this question!

    Thank you :)

    0

    This has come up briefly before on the forums, but I wanted to ask more about chaining biconditionals rather than splitting. On PT 54 game 1, because I wasn't on point with my understanding of biconditionals, I tried to chain up the first two rules with the rest, and it ended up being a total mess. I was super confused, whereas when I came back to it and just split the board and got rid of the biconditional it was a lot easier.

    I think there are times where chaining biconditionals is helpful, but my real question is, do we then have to write two versions of it when trying to read the chain? Because biconditionals can be /A (-) B or A (-) /B, (and the other two for "always together"), I find it pretty hard to read the chains. How do you guys go about this / is it ever really THAT helpful? It seems like if a biconditional comes up on an in-out game, it's always better to split it?

    Also if you know of any games that use chaining biconditionals, that would be helpful!

    0
    User Avatar
    •

    Last comment thursday, apr 11 2019

    huaj96241

    Help with modern RCs!

    I am having a hard time with newer RCs. With older ones (( PT60), I can often find a clearer correspondence between a correct answer and the supporting lines. With newer RC passages, the Answer choices really stumped me. There seems no correct answers! Because I cannot find A correct answer, I often struggle with one question for a long time and had to rush the rest of questions/passages.(/p)

    Any tips?

    A related question is that I see a couple of people mentioned fool-proof RCs. Fool-proofing method for LG worked really well for me, so I am thinking to try out this method for RC. Did it work for you, especially with newer RCs? Thanks.

    2

    Hello,

    I am unable to understand lines 28-36.

    I cannot understand what the author means by concentrating its resources on areas brought inadvertently within the scope. What does he mean by concentrating resources? Does he mean that he would enforce the law on those for whom it wasn't intended? Or does he mean that the agency would spend resources to avoid prosecuting innocent people who were inadvertently brought within the scope of the law?

    I'm unsure if the author is saying that capricious enforcement seems unlikely or something else is unlikely.

    Thank you so much.

    Admin note: edited title

    https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-68-section-1-passage-4-passage/

    https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-68-section-1-passage-4-questions/

    0

    A will go to B except when C happens.

    Maybe it can be done conditionally, I'm not sure. I've been thinking about writing C as a sufficient (either positive or negated), but I realized that except is saying something totally different then our typical conditional "lawgic." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's saying that when it's satisfied, the rule is irrelevant and when it's negated, nothing happens----the rule still stands while also not triggering anything. This is polar opposite of the way our conditionals are understood. So I was thinking it ought be represented in a special way.

    J.Y. used the diagram method, but it doesn't really sit well with my style of understanding. I was wondering what others do.

    Thanks!

    0

    Confirm action

    Are you sure?