Hi all,

I finished the CC earlier this week and took my first PT since my diagnostic a couple days ago. I did quite well going from a 150 to a 160 but my biggest gains were in RC and LG. During the second half of the LR sections (especially the second LR section), I felt like I would read over the stimulus and not be able to digest it because I felt so pressed for time. This definitely showed in my pre-blind review LR scores.

In the CC LR untimed problem sets, I would routinely get 5/5 questions right so I guess my question is in other 7sagers experiences, is there something I can do to help remedy this problem? Or will more PTs/blind review do the trick?

Thanks y'all, I greatly appreciate any input!

In general, for Logic Games execution, I am curious do most write directly on their base diagram or create local diagrams incorporating the new inference specific to the question? For some games when I split the board I don’t see this as much of an issue (although it still can be), but when I have one base diagram I find myself erasing a lot as I move to the next Q which inherently feels like I’m wasting time. Curious if others find it more efficient to draw up a whole new diagram or erase from the base and fill in the new inference for each subsequent Q. I feel like erasing causes me to lose work I can refer back to later, but writing out whole new diagrams feels like it can take up time as well.

[From PT69, Section 1, #20]

"Medical reporter: Studies have consistently found that taking an aspirin Admin note: deleted. copyright issues

"The reasoning in the doctor's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which of the following grounds?"

So which is it, medical reporter or doctor?

Can it be the tests are created by human beings? Nah, probably just a glitch in the matrix.

I have been trying to master my lawgic to English translations and need some help here.

Working on: /F --> /E

I want to say: No friendly person is not exciting.

But when I read this, it does not sound correct. If I try using a group 4 translation to bring it back to logic, it doesn't seem like it would work out. Any idea if I'm on the right track here? Thanks in advance!!!

I don't understand how A can be the answer.

A says "no evidence in favor of a hypothesis," but the proponents of the hypothesis is giving us evidence. He explains the fossil thing etc how come this doesn't count as evidence backing up his claim?

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-70-section-1-question-09/

Can someone please explain to me how the argument is flawed and why the correct answer is B?

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-76-section-2-question-21/

For LR, I'm officially scoring what I did before starting 7sage in January.

I began 7sage in january and made massive improvements in LR after the core curriculum. From Prep-test 36 through 38, I was getting just one to three wrong a section. On PT 36, however, my BR score (166) was only two points higher than my actual score (164), so I began to blind review in much more detail in nuance, revisiting parts of the core curriculum, and referring to the analytics tab on 7sage to help focus my studies.

However, I noticed that I was becoming more hesitant and more willing to circle questions, and the answers I gave to circled questions were more frequently wrong. I use to end each LR section with over 5 minutes to spare and around six questions circles, one or two of which would be corrected (my best overall performance was on Preptest 38, I scored a 166, with a 174 BR).By Preptest 40, I can barely finish an LR section, circle 8-12 questions, and end up correcting most of them.

I think this is best demonstrated in two timed drills I took from PT 73.

On section 2 in late February, I got four wrong initially, had circled 4, and corrected two.

On Section 4, which I took today, I got eleven wrong (many of which were not circled), and circled 12.

Does anyone have any other LR review methods besides Blind Reviewing?

I'm taking the March test and need advice. I thought I was in good shape when I stopped the core curriculum and truly believed the 7sage method, but now I feel like I wasted this time I took off to study for the LSAT (sorry for the mini rant).

I'm trying to improve on seeing the flaw in the premise but I can't seem to break the glass ceiling here. I can do the 1 and 2 star ones pretty well but my problems start to occur at 3 stars and up, and I end up going to the AC's blind which is not the right way to go about it. The easy cookie cutters I'm decent at, but ones like PT58.S1.Q18 give me fits because I can't quite "See it."

Any tips for helping to see it? I've been at this for a couple of years on and off so it is not a "I haven't seen enough", but rather I know its my approach mentally. Just would like a fresh perspective. Thanks!!!

Hi Everyone,

I am facing significant challenges with timing on the arguments section. As of right now, It takes me nearly 20 minutes to get through the first 10 questions on each arguments section. On one section recently I got 10 right but had 8 blank and 7 incorrect.

I am increasing my understanding of question types from the core curriculum but it’s not translating into increased speed/accuracy/right answers when I take practice tests. Does anyone have any tips that actually worked for them and subsequently improved their timing? How did you increase your pace?

Thanks so much 7Sagers!

Hey guys, can someone please advise - If you see two group 4 logical indicators in one sentence - do you pick one idea and negate necessary?

Does it have the same concept as when you see both group 3 and group 4 indicators in one sentence.

Example- If you cannot (cannot- group 4) swim you are not (not - group 4) a Koala Bear-

Do we translate it into Lawgic as [S arrow K] or is it translated as usual [s/ arrow k/]

Thanks in advance

M

So i’ve managed to improve my LR score to about 0-2 questions wrong per section. On good days I get every LR question right and on bad days I would get up to 3 or 4 wrong in total. I first finish the section in about 30 min and go back to the questions I circled as confusing. The thing is, when I solve questions I usually read every single answer choice (so even if I know that AC A is the correct answer, I would read B,C,D,E just to make sure). Sometimes, when i’m absolutely sure that the one I chose is the correct answer, I just skim through the rest of the answer choices, but I still spend time reading them.

What do you guys think about not reading the other answer choices once I choose an answer that i’m fairly sure is right? This way I would finish the section earlier and would have more time to spend on trickier questions. Right now I feel like i’m too nervous to do it but i’ve seen JY do it in his live commentaries and am thinking about it.

Has anyone tried this and improved their scores? Or should I still at least skim through every answer choice?

I don't really understand answer choice A) if there is no overwhelming evidence for or against a hypo. then one should "suspend judgment as to its truth". What does it mean by "as to its truth"? Anyone could help?

Thanks!!

Admin note: edited title and added link

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-41-section-3-question-14/

Hey guys,

This is a burning question that's been bothering me since the beginning of my LR prep.

If you have seen PT64 S1 Q13 (joggers question) and PT73 S4 Q3 (skin cancers question) or would like to check them out, please continue reading.

In PT64 S1 Q13, the argument concludes that stretching doesn't help prevent injury because the group that stretched before jogging had the same number of injuries as those who didn't.

This is a weaken question.

We have Trap Answer Choice E, which states that in some forms of exercises stretching before engaging in an activity can reduce the severity of injuries. It is easy to eliminate E on the basis of "some forms of exercise" because we do not know that such a case includes jogging. But what if E had specifically mentioned jogging? Would it weaken the argument? Can the severity of an injury be a factor that contributes to the effectiveness of its prevention?

Similarly, in PT73 S4 Q3, the argument concludes that sunscreen lotions aren't effectively preventing UV rays causing skin cancer because the average number of the people who get skin cancer is as great for people using sun lotions as those who don't.

This is a flaw question.

Trap Answer Choice B says that the argument fails to see the difference between the number of cases and the severity of the cases in evaluating the effectiveness of skin cancer prevention.

One clear way to eliminate B is to realize that B does not pinpoint which group's skin cancers were more severe. If B had said that the argument fails to consider that the group without sun lotion had more severe cases of skin cancer, would it be the flaw of the argument?

I think the decision to accept modified versions of both PT73 S4 Q3 and PT64 S1 Q13 depends on how we understand the definition of prevention. To evaluate whether prevention of a disease/injury occurred effectively, is it sufficient to ONLY focus on the number of injuries/disease prevented OR do we also need to take into account whether any reduction in the severity of such disease/injury occurred?

In my opinion, measuring the severity of an injury does matter in assessing the effectiveness of a preventive measure.

If a thousand people who used sunscreen lotion developed stage 1 skin cancer but the same number of people who didn't use sunscreen lotion developed stage 4 skin cancer, the argument would be weakened because the sunscreen lotion indeed was effective in blocking a worse form of skin cancer. It would be unreasonable to say that sunscreen lotion wasn't effective in that case.

All in all, what is meant by effective prevention? Does it have it to be complete 100% prevention (as in no instances of injuries, whether severe or light) to be properly called effective prevention?

Thank you so much for reading my painful thought process. Please help!

I seem to have a good grasp on these, getting them down to the last 2 possible answers-85% of the time choosing the right answer. But, in my opinion, for more than 75% of the correct answers they never tend to be the comparative answers. Is it safe to say that majority of the time the answers are NOT comparative, unless the subject within the statement has a comparison?

I’m taking the June 2019 lsat. I am really good at lg but bad at everything else. Do you guys think I can achieve a perfect score. By June while working and taking classes if I study at least 6 hours everyday. I’ll prolly be doing more. I am just so nervous and I have so much anxiety I can’t even sleep.

Hey there! Hope everyone is doing well in their LSAT studies!

I stumbled upon a question that stated "otherwise" within the answer choices. (for reference: PT 63 Section 1 #21) J.Y. noted that otherwise means "or, and not both" which is a biconditional, however, I'm having trouble distinguishing this from "not otherwise"

If someone can kindly look over the two statements I have provided below, one with otherwise & the other with not otherwise.

Examples:

If a class involves science work, the class will be conducted in a laboratory; otherwise, it will be conducted in a normal room.

If a class involves science work, the class will be conducted in a laboratory or a normal room, but not otherwise.

Are these both the same in conditional logic? Laboratory (--) Normal room.

Also, would someone be able to provide an example that would likely be a rule on a logic game with those terms?

Thank you!

Is there a pdf sheet with answers to games from 1-35 (foolproofing) Instead of looking at each explanation, is there a way I can look at a sheet to see if I got the correct answer?

Just a general question about NA question. What clues/cues do some of you have to help you determine from the get go if you need to bridge or find a shield answer? I notice I usually freak out in some of these situations. Any insight i deeply appreciated.

Hi, I had taken the January 2019 administration of the LSAT. Will I be able to use that for my required writing sample? I am not sure if I need to take the writing sample again after because I'm doing the June 2019 test, too. LSAC has a new thing for the June 2019 test so wasn't sure how that applies.

Hi everyone! I feel like I heard someone mention in the comments or maybe in the 7sage podcast that there is a way to foolproof LR, but I can't remember where I heard that or how to do it. Does anyone have any ideas?

I was wondering if instead of trying to bridge the gap of the premise to conclusion to make the argument valid, we could look for the AC's that strengthen the conclusion and eliminate the rest and then from that point determine which AC strengthens the argument the most?

Hey guys, can someone give their own explanation regarding how they arrive at the correct answer for this one?

For me, it is clear why A, D, and E are wrong, but I got hung up between B and C. I choose B both during the actual PT and during BR.

I initially chose B because it seems that it can be true given the information in the stimulus. While the stimulus states (in short) that is it unlikely individuals can adequately provide funding and the necessary skills, the unlikeliness of those possibilities does not seem to eliminate the possibility that some founders are adequate at providing both funding and skills.

After seeing that the answer is C, I was able to justify (somewhat) why B is incorrect. While some founders could be adequate at both funding and skills, it is not necessary. It also seems to contradict the stimulus because if some members can have both the adequate funding and skills, then you can challenge that having a group is more likely to be successful v. an individual.

Any other explanations on how to arrive to C? I am having a difficult time articulating exactly why C is correct without simply eliminating the other four ACs.

Just wanted to gauge interest to see about getting a BR together leading up to the March LSAT.

Can anyone explain Q 22 for me? Why is the right answer D & not E? I’m also confused about diagramming this one.

Thank you.

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-50-section-2-question-22/

TRUST THAT YOU CAN REMEMBER THE INFERENCES.

At times, when foolproofing a game and watching the explanation video, I get overwhelmed. I start thinking that there is no way I can reproduce the inferences that are detailed in this 15-20 minute video. I might even convince myself that I need to find an easier way to solve the game other than J.Y's explanation (like look for a split that no one has found yet, not always a bad thing obviously).

Then I decided I was just going to watch the explanation video and attempt the game immediately. Got both of the new games I did today within the target time on only my second attempts. What I learned from this is, that sometimes it's hard to realize that you actually DO remember the inferences, and WILL be able to recall them when tested on whether you can make the inference. Your mind is probably smarter than you think, so give it a little credit.