Hi everyone,

Does anyone have any advice on how to re-approach logical reasoning questions when you've pretty much did every question and sort of remember the answer? How do you about doing these questions again? I made the mistake of burning through all of them and now I'm studying them again for a retake. I'm kind of worried because people are telling me that I won't improve much since I don't have any fresh new questions that I haven't seen before. Please tell me this isn't true lol

I'm wondering whether I should start foolproofing LG while I am going through the core curriculum for the first time, or whether I should go through the core curriculum first and then begin foolproofing once I'm done? I have seen conflicting responses to this question, so I would really appreciate some feedback on what the best approach is. Thanks!

I think this is a necessary assumption question. Correct me if I'm wrong please!

Summary of stimulus:

Context:

In the EU, schoolchildren do daily calisthenics during school.

In North America, schoolchildren rarely do daily calisthenics during school.

Premise:

Tests show that North American children are weaker, slower, and shorter-winded than European children.

Conclusion:

North American schoolchildren can be made physically fit -> North American schoolchildren do daily calisthenics

Notes:

Reading the ACs:

A) Children -> can be made physically fit by daily calisthenics. This should be crossed out since we don't need ALL children to be made physically fit when our conclusion is just about North American children. Is there another reason to eliminate A?

B ) Children -> can be made equally physically fit by daily calisthenics; I don't know if the children have to be made equally physically fit. They just need to get to a level where they are physically fit. Wrong.

C) We are concerned about physical fitness in this argument, not about health. Wrong.

D) This says school calisthenics are a necessary factor in EU children's physical fitness--this is what the author assumes.

E) We don't care about the children eating more nutritious diets/exercising daily--we care about calisthenics! Wrong.

Am I writing the conditionals in A and B wrong? I originally picked A because I thought it would guarantee the conclusion--which is wrong to do bc this isn't an SA question. Is A wrong for additional reasons that I've listed above?

Admin note: edited title

Hello everyone- should we memorize the types of valid and invalid argument forms . I reviewed them from the cc but can’t seem to commit every single one to memory. What’s everyone’s take on this ?

I have been drilling LR sections for a while, and I used to have a -4/-6 for LR sections in PT 18-35.

However, I began doing PT 1-16 four days ago, and I found that I now have a -1/-3 for these older PTs (I have done 6 of them so far).

Does that mean I made some improvements or are those older LR sections just easier in nature?

I haven't got to PT 36-83 yet. Could anyone please also tell me the estimated difficulties of the LR sections in those PTs (as compared to PT 1-35)?

Thanks!

Hey all,

i just spent 3 hours BR'ing my RC section. I would reread the passage (do low and high res summary, VIEWSTAMP, etc.), and then go over questions i circled. I would prove 1 AC right and 4 AC wrong, often with specific line references. It took 3 hours.

I usually hit around -4/5 timed and -1/2 for BR.

IS this normal? how long do you guys usually take for BR'ing RC?

Any other advice, suggestions, or comments would be appreciated :)

Thanks!

I am open to any study, or performance ideas for my successful work with logic games. I study each day, do the games daily, and watch the videos. I have seen some improvement. However, not with my quickness to compete the games. I also seem to often created three or four boards, as opposed to possibly using two. I have cracked a 100 once on one of the games, sometimes I get 4/6. I have watched the videos repeatedly. Other than repetition, does anyone have any tips or suggestions?

I have a background in the humanities and social sciences, and my study techniques usually involve memorization of everything for any exam.

Perhaps, this is a form of test anxiety, and I am self defeating. However, any study tip would be greatly appreciated. No idea is too simple, and all advice I will take seriously. Thank you for taking the time to read my post.

Hello everyone,

I have been crushing it lately in Logic Games when I do timed sections/tests, but can't seem to improve at all on LR. I am thinking of going back through most of the LR curriculum, but I wanted to hear from you all on your tips and tricks to consistently get better at LR over time. I am currently averaging -14 per LR. I would truly appreciate any type of help as I am most likely going to consistently drill in my head how to get better at LR before July and most likely when I take the test again in September.

Thanks!

I'm thinking this question rewards those with outside knowledge of the legal system and here's why.

For some reason, A was lost among me, so I kept it as a contender and kept moving through the answer choices. I got to E and thought it sounded good so I chose it.

In my mind, I mistakenly thought that juries worked by defaulting to a not-guilty verdict when a unanimous decision to convict couldn't be reached. With this embarrassing understanding in mind, I thought that if different jurors couldn't agree on the significance of a testimony, that would leave some of the jurors to conclude that what Tagowa had to say, even if true, was trivial, or didn't matter in the grand scheme of things so these particular jurors wouldn't convict based on it. Now I know that any verdict requires a unanimous decision, even a not guilty verdict. However, doesn't that reward those who know that about the legal system? Is that supposed to be common knowledge? If so, I'll happily take my L. I could just be laughably misinformed about our legal system. What do you guys think?

Admin note: edited title

Video explanation: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-48-section-4-question-13/

Whats going on 7sagers,

I wanted to get some opinions on using a wipe board to fool proof games. I know the best way to do it is on paper the way it is presented on the actual test. However printing sufficient amount of copies could get a little expensive. Has anyone used a wipe board to fool proof? Thanks for the input and good luck with the rest of studies!

Hello,

I just have a quick question and would appreciate anyone's comments on this. I somehow managed to go from -15 on RC sections consistently for a while to -11 and -9. I went -15 on PT 63,65,79,81,83 and went -11 and -9 on PT 76 and 78. Do you guys think PT 76 and 78 had an unusually easy set of passages??(If that's the consensus, that wouldn't be uplifting...) I mean yes PT 76 had an unusually easy set of logic games, no doubt about it... but since LG isn't as relative as RC, I would like to know whether my RC has improved or that those two RC sections were a breeze to most...

p.s_ I did notice that one passage in PT 78(that clay *hit) was very similar to the beads nonsense passage from PT 76 under timed condition.

I am currently drilling Main Point questions and I have come across question #3 from PT9 Section 2 and I am slightly confused. I chose "this concept of balance, however, does not justify concealing or glossing over basic injustices in an effort to be even-handed" as the main conclusion. I chose answer choice C but I am nonetheless confused as to why B is the correct answer choice.

Admin note: edited title

Can someone explain this theory? These are the notes that I have taken based off the webinar video

Strengthen: Answer choices introduce the additional areas of key similarties

Weakening: Answer choices introduce key areas of dissimilarities

" The similarity vs. dissimilarity" is throwing me off.

University Administrator: Graduate students incorrectly claim that teaching assistants should be considered university employees and thus entitled to the usual employee benefits. Granted, teaching assistants teach classes, for which they receive financial compensation. However, the sole purpose of having teaching assistants perform services for the university is to enable them to fund their education. If they were not pushing degrees here or if they could otherwise fund their education, they would not hold their teaching posts at all.

This is a weakening question.

A. The administrator is cognizant of the extra costs involved in granting employee benefits to teaching assistants.

B. The university employs adjunct instructors who receive compensation similar to that of its teaching assistants.

C. The university has proposed that in the interest of economy, 10 percent of the faculty be replaced with teaching assistants.

D. Most teaching assistants earn stipends that exceed their cost of tuition.

E. Teaching assistants work as much and hard as hard as do other university employees. ( I thought E was the answer because its proving how hard teacher assistants work so therefore they should receive other benefits but I guess I can see how the administrator never said that they did not work hard.)

Nicole said that C was the answer because they are so similar that they are interchangeable and this is where I got confused. I thought that with weakening questions you had to pick answers that were different from what the conclusion was saying. How does this answer weaken the argument. I think that I am struggling with reading the answer choices incorrectly. Are there any tips that you guys could provide that will aide me with this problem?

I'm still unclear on why I am to negate sufficient when I come across unless, or should it just introduce the necessary condition?

"K cannot be selected for honor roll, unless H is selected to honor roll."

would I take H selected and move it to the sufficient and negate it?

/H ---->/K or contrapositive K----->H

or would it simply be

K----->H right from the start and have the "unless" introduce the necessary?

Please Help!!!

I am somewhat struggling with diagramming sufficient and necessary conditions with logical reasoning. Some i can answer and some has me a little confused. Are there any tips that could help me understand this? I’m not on 7 sage core curriculum i am studying with LSATMAX, but i also have powerscore bibles and a book called the LSAT trainer that just came in. If anyone could please help me i would greatly appreciate it.

I'm not sure if this is the correct place? Are we allowed to ask questions about individual questions? If it's not allowed (sorry!) let me know and I will delete this thread, or someone can take appropriate action.

Assuming this is all kosher, I don't understand why the answer is A for this question. This was one of those questions where I thought all of the answer choices seemed wrong--I was stuck between B and D, and didn't even consider A. I ruled out A because I thought the stimulus was talking about a hypothetical situation where the patients with a greater tendency to laugh weren't laughing a lot, so why would the answer be that it doesn't take into account that they laughed more?

Is A correct because when people, whose tendencies to laugh are greater, "laugh a little" they laugh MORE than other patients who laugh a greater amount than usual, but still less than the laughy people laughing less? (I thought this greater amount meant that they were laughing more than the people who have the tendency to laugh more. Is it that they are laughing a greater amount than they usually laugh? If so then I guess I understand A...)

Sorry this isn't super succinct but I am hella confused, any help would be appreciated!

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-72-section-3-question-07/

hi there! I'm curious to know where everyone scheduled to take the 9/8/18 test is in terms of studying - are you PTing? still working on the CC? drilling LGs?

I was originally scheduled to take the 7/23/18 test but realized that I wasn't likely going to be ready for it so just pushed it back to September. I'm nearly finished with the CC (finishing up LG section) and will start PTing within the next two weeks. I've been trying to follow the study scheduled generated by 7sage but I'm currently about two weeks behind, which makes me nervous. but I'm pressing forward, studying at least 4-6 hours each day.

oh, also - how do you manage LG drilling, LR and RC practice, and PTing at the same time? I was planning on PTing in the morning, BR in the afternoon/evening (3 days each week, if possible), then 3 days each week alternating between LR and RC practice with LG drilling on all 3 days. I realize this sounds like an ambitious schedule and admittedly won't be able to stick with it all of the time due to personal obligations - if you would suggest any modifications, what would they be?

Hi everyone,

Whenever I take practice tests I don't actively parse out the stimulus like JY shows us in the CC. I might make a quick line or circle to note the conclusion indicator and then proceed to scan the answer choices. Is that the proper approach?

Thanks in advance!

So I am watching the Webinar on Weakening and Strengthening questions and I have a questions about the first question. The first question is a strengthening question and I have typed the stimulus and answer choices below.

Stimulus: Several years ago, as a measure to reduce the population of gypsy moths, which depended on oak leaves for food, entomologists introduced into many oak forests a species of fungus that is poisonous to gypsy moth caterpillars. Since then, the population of both caterpillars and adult moths has significantly declined in those areas. Entomologists have concluded that the decline is attributable to the presence of poisonous fungus.

A. A strain of gypsy moths whose caterpillars are unaffected by the fungus has increased its share of the total gypsy population.

B. The fungus that was introduced to control the gypsy moth population is poisonous to few insect species other than the gypsy moth.

C. An increase in numbers of both gypsy moth caterpillars and gypsy moth adults followed a drop in the number of some of the species that prey on the moths.

D. In the past several years, air pollution and acid rain have been responsible for substantial decline in oak tree populations

E. The current decline in gypsy moth population in forests where the fungus was introduced is no greater than a decline that occurred concurrently in other forests. (I thought that this was the answer.)

Questions

I know that with strengthening questions you are looking for the answer choice that strengthens the argument and blocks the alternative. I am a little confused on what exactly does it mean to block the alternative. After looking at the explanation of the webinar video for this question it seems as if blocking the alternative is an answer choice that provides another alternative. Is that correct? I believe that the whole concept of "blocking the alternative" is going over my head and I would like further clarification on this strategy. In addition, can someone explain how A strengthens the argument....A does not seem like it supports thew conclusion if the conclusion is saying that the fungus contributes to the decline of moths and A is talking about that the population increased.

I’ve been looking through many logical reasoning weaken questions and I’ve trying to look for patterns. The only one I found was correlation—> causation. I was wondering if there are any other common patterns that would be discernible in the stimulus for the questions.

Im really struggling with SA questions, does anybody have any tips to help me out?

Hey guys. I recently got to the Grouping Games section of the CC and am moving through them decently. I'm doing my fool proofing and everything and was just wondering if I should be putting these games that I am doing via the CC into my tracker on excel? I assume I should be in order to keep track of them, but also am wondering if it's hurting me because the 2nd attempt of them, which I do right after is almost guaranteed to at least be 6/7 correct. So I'm really just wondering if I'm cheating myself ultimately by doing this? So one of my main questions is should I be utilizing the tracker mainly once I am done the CC LG sections or begin to do that as I am going through the CC? Thanks

How can you get better at Flaw questions? I always isolate the premise(s) and the conclusion, and know that you are suppose to weaken the link between the premise and the conclusion. But a lot of times, I just don't know how/can't prephrase. So I go to the answer choices and then almost always end up picking the tricky wrong answer (i.e. descriptively accurate but is not actually the flaw). I have done this part of the CC and have completed some of the Flaw problem sets.

#help

I was wondering if anyone could provide/explain the general set of rules for this statement: Nothing that one should have desired in the first place fails to be a pleasure.

D: Nothing that one should have desired in the first place

P: Fails to be a pleasure

JY wrote the statements like so (/D -> P), but I was wondering if someone could help explain? I am confused why only one of the statements is negated.

I foolproofed every game from PT 19-38. Then I shifted my focus to Logical Reasoning and I've found I'm slower than I was at the height of my foolproofing. Will this speed come back if I incorporate a LG section into my prep every day? I suppose I'm worried I might regress while studying for LR and RC.