Can someone please help me comprehend why "reducing stress can help weakened immune system" is same as "stress can weaken the immune system" ? It seems like invalid negation to me...

Thanks a lot!

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-60-section-1-question-07/

this is a weaken question

the conclusion is that those skilled workers who remained in EE will be in high demand

Premise: highly skilled workers left for the West

B is clear to me as the correct answer choice

but i could not get rid of D (in fact, in PT i changed from B to D);

if those countries plan to train many new workers to fill the positions left by those skilled workers, wouldn't D also weaken the argument?

thanks for the help!

Hi! I’m looking for some study strategy. I’m looking for encouraging & supportive advice.

I’m planning on taking the exam on Nov 17. I’ve taken about 7 practice tests over the past several months. I’m averaging about 149 and have a goal of 160. I have a high accuracy on my untimed tests.

I generally get through 2 logic games, 2.5 reading comprehension passages, and all but the last page of a logical reasoning section on a timed test. I do blind review and go through the questions. I’ve been studying off and on since January. I’ve read all the PowerScore books.

So, I’ve got several weeks left. How should I prioritize my studying and schedule my time to bump up my score? I work part-time, too.

I took the LSAT in June 2017. It didn't go as well as I wanted. I took a bunch of time off to figure out if I really wanted to do law school (I do). I am taking the November test and my PTs are bouncing around a wide range (161-168). My goal is 165+. Any advice?

Any tips for increasing the score from around a 149-150? This is my second time taking the test and have one month left, so any study tips for the second time aroung would be great!

I started using the skipping strategy that the Sages talk about in the webinar on a timed drill section today and got TWICE as many wrong as I usually do. What gives?

hey all,

i was wondering how top scorers do SA Q's under timed conditions? i've been realizing that SA questions take me WAY too long to do under timed conditions.

Do you do the short cut way -- where you identify the "new guy" in the premises, and the "new guy" in the conclusion, and just go hunt for an answer choice that has both "new guys"?

Or do you actually map out the logical chain, and try to find the area you need to bridge?

do you hand write the logic for SA questions, or do you just do it all in your head?

if you do it all in your head, how are you able to do that with certain SA questions that are very convoluted (both with grammar and logic), and have many conditional logic chains?

in other words, what's your thought process/strategy whenever you see a SA question under timed conditions?

thanks!!

I’m in need of some advice from whoever can offer me some. I have been writing PTs and have been not doing well on the LR sections. However I have been doing good on the practice questions that come after every LR lesson. I also have confidence that I know how to tackle LR questions. Can someone help me try and figure out what can be done to resolve this or am I just over analyzing?

If you're taking the November 2018 LSAT and your account is inconveniently set to expire a few days before the test date, you can get a free 14-day extension from this page: https://classic.7sage.com/free-extension/

For those of you who are expiring after, good luck on the LSAT! We here at 7Sage are rooting for you.

I'm scheduled to take the November test, but today I am real dissatisfied where I'm scoring. I'm starting to seriously consider the January test. Or .. even the March test? But March seems such a late date for applying for 2019. How much could I expect to raise my score in the 3 months till the January exam or 5 months to March exam?

And if I decide to do this, should I wait to apply to competitive schools only after the second attempt?

Game 1

Game 2

Game 3

Game 4

When people say to foolproof games 1-35, how are you doing this? A couple questions with this...

I'm new to the concept of fool proofing, which I'm sure is surprising because it seems that everyone is doing it! So I'm jumping on the train. Just need to know the best way to begin doing this.

it is a strengthening question where the conclusion is that descriptive labels have outlived their usefulness.

Because an unusual Grb was sighted that had properties of both.

My issue with the correct ans choice is that the argument says that the unusual GRB had all properties of Short GRB in every other respect other than duration. So if take the ans choice to be true, then other properties would be more important in classification however in that case since we know from stimulus that all other properties were that of a short Grb then we could easily classify the unusual Grb to be a short one.

so i dont see how this strengthens the conclusion for us. In a way i suppose it weakens the argument at best. Could somebody let me know where i am going wrong ?

i can see how others are wrong but cant see how C is correct.

Admin note: edited title

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

I am having a hard time spotting the right answer for NA questions. Can someone provide a way of attacking the answer choices? I always negate the answer choice to see if it destroys the argument, but I don't think I am doing it right. I keep falling for a trick answer choice. #HELP

I am fluctuating in the range 165-172. My median score is a 168 and I'm aiming for a 170 on test day. I know I am capable of it - my BR score fluctuates about 2-3 points in either direction of 175.

I'd love any advice on how to consistently produce my top scores. Some details/stats:

With 3 short weeks left what can I do to nail down those last few points? Should I shorten the time on my PTs? Take fewer PTs and focus on Flaw, NA, PSA? Something else entirely?

Hey all,

I took the October 2018 LSAT in Kenya. I had two LG sections and I'm just wondering which one was the real one and which was experimental. Does anyone have this info?

Hello. Lately I have been having a lot of trouble with grasping what exactly I am supposed to be doing with Weaken and Strengthen Questions. I understand that the basic concept is to find an answer choice that will either weaken or strengthen the existing support structure provided in the Stimulus or more it less or more relevant but despite this I find myself having trouble with finding the correct answer.

Because we have to treat what is said in the answer choices as true what does that mean for the assumptions that you can draw from the answer choices? Are we even supposed to be making any assumptions from the answer choices when doing this and if so do they also hold true? Or is the truth of these assumptions from the answer choice dependent on something else like the information and context provided by the Stimulus? Should we even be making any assumptions at all when it comes to the AC?! Also do we treat all the information in the Stim as true as well?

To make my question a bit more clear I will be using Question 15 from "Weaken Questions Problem Set 5" as an example.

Admin note: Please review the forum rules.

4. Do not post LSAT questions, any copyrighted content, or links to content that infringe on copyright.

PT25.S2.Q15: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-25-section-2-question-15/

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the reasoning above?

Answer Choices (With my Reasoning Below)

A.) Admin note: Deleted

X = I picked this answer choice (but it turned out to be incorrect) because I thought that the argument above assumed that it was only temperature that is capable of causing rhododendrons (R) and crocus (C) to blossom. If it was to some other factor which this AC seems to hint at then wouldn’t it weaken the authors argument that because of the observed incident it can be concluded that it would indicate something about the temperature.

B) Admin note: Deleted

X = The subject of this AC is what many people think about being outdoors which is irrelevant and thus does nothing to weaken the argument above.

C) Admin note: Deleted

X = I feel that this would strengthen the argument because if it is also favorable then it is more likely for this incidence to be indicative of the accuracy of a thermometer reading.

D) Admin note: Deleted

Correct AC = This is my problem with this AC. It says that R “CAN” grow 12 feet tall. Are we supposed to draw an assumption that the R plant in the Stim is infact 12 feet tall. “Can” seems to indicate only a possibility but it doesn’t guarantee anything so then I thought that because we had to draw a assumption that this wouldn’t be a strong enough AC to weaken. Also the phrase “is likely” doesn’t guarantee us anything either, it just indicates an increased chance but not something I would consider to be 100%. That 1% that the air temperature might not differ could possibly lead this AC to be useless in weakening. So I am confused as to how much we can assume to make an AC fit with either strengthen or weaken.

E) Admin note: Deleted

X = Seems irrelevant to me although it has the possibility to weaken if the assumption that the author was using this specific thermometer + would have to assume that he is not working in modern temperature range + also would have to assume that he is observing this phenomenon where the thermometer would be less accurate. So too many assumptions that we are not guaranteed of.

Hello, with just about a month left until the November exam, I'm taking 2-3 prep tests every week and will have taken 25-30 PTs by the exam week, but I'm reading that a lot of the test takers took every available exam in the market (some even twice). I'm pretty consistently hitting high 160s and early 170s on my PTs but am concerned that I am not taking advantage of all the resources available. Generally, do scores improve with more PTs? Should I be concerned about the fact that I will have taken less than 30 PTs?

I have tried the memory method, and it helps a little. My score for that section has been fairly the same. I am not entirely sure what I can do to improve it. Any tips?

When I do logic games, I usually follow these steps:

I realized one thing I neglect to do is thinking about the structure of the base. This is a bad move on my part! Thinking about what kind of base we are dealing with helps clarify the game! Below I’ve detailed the 3 main types of bases in logic games.

1. Sequenced Bases

The only difference between the bases is the order in the sequence.

Example 1: PT01S2G3

The game is a pure sequencing game. It is telling us the order of the partners joining the law firm during the years 1961 through 1968. Therefore, our gameboard is going to be 8 slots, with each slot corresponding to each year.

Example 2: PT13S1G3

This game is a sequencing game with grouping elements. We have 2 lectures, one in the morning and one in the afternoon, on 3 days. Therefore our gameboard will have sequenced days (1, 2, and 3) with lecture spots for the morning and afternoon on each day. Each day is equal. It is the lectures that are different and have rules attached to them, which affect the days.

Example 3: PT01S2G1

This game is unusual at first glance, but after understanding the setup, we can see how it’s just another sequencing game. The trade reps are sitting around a circular table in sequenced chairs. This is just another sequencing game with the caveat that chairs 1 and 6 are next to each other, which the LSAT writers have explicitly mentioned! Each chair is the same as the chair next to it, except for its order in the circle.

2. Distinct bases

These bases are different from each other. They can show up in both grouping and sequencing games.

Example 1: PT14S1G1

This is an example of a grouping game with distinct sequenced bases. Our groups are the different positions of the employees: president, manager, and technician. The groups are sequenced because an employee must be supervised by a position that is different from the employee’s position.

Each group has a different characteristic. There is only one spot in the President group. The employees in the President and Manager groups have differing supervising rules. An inference is that the employees in the Technician group do not supervise anyone.

Example 2: PT09S3G2

All in/out games have distinct bases! One group is in and the other is out. Here, we have 7 people and exactly 4 can be in the in group. Therefore 3 must be in the out group. These requirements for the number of elements that must be in the two groups help us determine where the elements can go.

Example 3: PT14S1G4

This is a great example of a game where the differing requirements for the different bases are the key to splitting. Our bases are fall, winter, spring, and summer. Each of the bases are different because Nikki and Otto are limited to playing different sports in each season.

3. Interchangeable bases

In this category, the bases are independent and have no relation to each other.

Example 1: PT15S4G4

This is an in-out game and while the in and out groups obviously differ (with one being in and the other being out), the in group has interchangeable subgroups. Let’s focus on that part. All we know about the in group is that it is composed of 4 teams with two elements each. The four bases here are the four interchangeable teams with 2 elements each.

SPOILER WARNING: There aren’t too many examples of these in PTs 1-35. This is why I’m including PT 62 as Example 2.

Example 2: PT62S3G2

We are tasked with figuring out the colors for 3 stained glass windows. The three windows are our groups and they are totally interchangeable. From figuring this out, we can start placing elements in our groups. This is because the order in which the elements are placed doesn’t matter and we can focus on placing the elements down as is required by the rules of the game.

Please let me know if you have any questions or suggestions/corrections and thank you for reading!

I have a quick question about LG 4 on PT 56. I got 3 questions wrong because I misunderstood one of the initial rules -- S cannot take place after any site that includes V.

I wrote it as S --- V even though it was supposed to be S is with or before V. I understood it in the context of the explanation posted, but am wondering if there's any other foolproof explanation that applies to games in general so I don't overlook it in the future?

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-56-section-1-game-4/

I know that for weaken questions we're supposed to be critical of how the premise(s) support the conclusion (e.g. select the answer choice that "most weakens the argument" (an argument of course comprising one or several premises and a conclusion). But what if the question stem is cast in weaken form but refers only to the "conclusion"? For example, a stem might ask for which choice "casts the most doubt on the conclusion above." Is there a distinction to be drawn between these stems insofar as what the test is asking the test-taker to do? In other words, if I'm asked to weaken exclusively the conclusion, should I pay no attention to premises and select the answer choice that would simply weaken the conclusion, or do I need to without exception be cognizant of the premise-conclusion relationship?

i took the september LSAT, and i think nerves and lack of timed pt's played a large role in my low score. I'm trying to make at least a 5 point jump, and I want to make sure i'm being as effective as possible when studying. what is the best way to evaluate your weaknesses and improve them? my lowest section was RC, and i struggle with timing on LG. i've been taking two timed pt's per week since the september LSAT, but i'm not sure what the best method is when going back through your wrong answers. any tips!?!?

Fellow 7sagers,

I've long thought that Blind Review was only really necessary for L.R. and not Reading since the questions are mostly based on content in the passage. For those who do, is it really beneficial to Blind Review Reading Comp? If so, how do y'all do it. (Re-read the passage, and then go through the questions, etc.)

I re-took the June 2018 LSAT today. I remember when I took it in June and RC was my first section. When I turned the page and saw the passage was on Borges and fiction, I was elated. All of my nerves disappeared. I worship Borges. To me, there's writers, and then there's great writers, and then there's Borges. He's a marvel of literature. I've read almost almost all of his short fiction ("The Aleph" and "Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius" are my faves) and have taught his work at colleges. I know a lot about him (his love for magnifying glasses, how he went blind late in life, his career as a librarian in Buenos Aires). He's a GOD to me. But did this help me that day, or today, on my RC? Nope! That RC section, and that passage, picks me apart. Usually I'm -3 to -5 on RC. Today I went -9. And 3/6 on the Borges passage. Just goes to show, sometimes having previous knowledge doesn't help. If anything, I think my Borges' biases on that section was a hindrance.