i am taking the LSAT in September for the first time and I need at least a 160. I scored a 145 on my first cold practice test. Is it possible to make that big of a jump in scoring in such a short period of time??

The prep books basically say to identify the premise and move on. However, in my research, I have found different types of premises; suspended premises, explicit and implicit premises, dependent and independent premises and so forth. I'm getting confused and frustrated with the terminology in the different types of claims, statements, propositions, premises. Any words of encouragement? Please help...!!!

I have heard that a sample of the test is released 90 days before you are suppose to take the exam. Is this true? If so, how do you access it? I am already registered for the September 2018 LSAT.

Hi everyone,

This seems like it's a relatively easy question but I cannot understand why answer choice (b) is right over answer choice (a). Doesn't answer choice (b) strengthen the argument since Salmonella is has to be quickly identified and treated and new test detects Salmonella at levels that are low to pose a health risk to people?

Please share your wisdom!

Thank you!

I am doing all the steps correctly except for when it come to translating the symbols back to English. How can I ensure that I am translating correctly because my English Lawgic is not matching JY'S.

From prep test 1, section 3, question 20, in the middle it states "However, most people consistently perceive small business as a force for good in society, whereas big business is perceived as socially responsible only in times of prosperity." Does this mean that all people perceive big business as socially responsible only in times of prosperity or does it mean that most people perceive big business as socially responsible only in times of prosperity?

Can someone please explain to me why the answer in this question is (e) and not (a)? I feel like (e) is unnecessary. Why would it have to promote only healthful products? Isn't (a) supporting the conclusion in a right way? Thanks so much for the help!

I’ve only taken 3 PT’s so I don’t have substantial data about my strong and weak question types for LR.

My average section is -6 timed and -2 BR.

Should I start by doing section drills? How many per day? How should I respond to these drills? (I can study around 5 hours a day)

Can someone explain the difference between assumption questions and causation questions when it comes to strengthening/weakening questions? I am completely lost after the causation lessons.

Very often, you will be able to eliminate two answer choices from a Flaw Question very quickly and easily due to their obvious faults, leaving 3 possible correct ACs.

If you become stuck between these 3 ACs, a tip that I have found EXTREMELY useful is to recognize that 2 of the remaining ACs are often actually saying the exact same thing, just using different language or phrasing. If you recognize the 2 ACs that are the same, instantly eliminate both of them and circle the 3rd AC as your final answer.

Yes, ACs are always meant to be confusing and seem similar. But specifically with Flaw Questions, these answer choices are MORE than just similar, they are the completely the same. There will NEVER be a question that presents you with two matching ACs where 1 of those ACs is the correct answer. NEVER.

An example (I have only included the remaining 3 ACs):

Question: _"A group of citizens opposes developing a nearby _

Admin note: Please do not post an actual LSAT question. PT72.S3.Q11.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-72-section-3-question-11/

The argument above is flawed in that it

A) bases it conclusion mainly on a claim that an opposing argument is weak

B) illicitly infers that because each member of a set has a certain property that set itself has the property

D) illicitly infers that an attribute of a few users of the proposed trail will characterize a majority of users on the trail

If you understand the question AND understand Answer Choice B and D, you will see that they are actually saying the exact same thing: that you cannot generalize the qualities of a group from the qualities of a specific few. It's the same answer, just worded differently. Cross them both out and choose your remaining option (A)! Even if you're not positive, this is a great way of leading yourself to the right answer!

Hey all,

So I've been drilling RC for a few weeks. I've done all RC sections from PT's 19-47.

During my drills from PT 19-40, I was averaging around -3/4 after blind review and -6 timed.

I took the RC section from PT 47 today, and managed to get a -0 blind review (my first one ever!!!!! the closest I've ever been on my RC blind review score was a -2). My timed score for that section though was like a -7 though, and I was really struggling to finish under time.

My questions are:

I find myself often rushing at the last passage. I try to average about 3:30 for reading passages and about 5 minutes for questions.

I also try skipping strategies by skipping questions once I read through the answer choices twice and still can't choose an answer.

Any advice or suggestions is appreciated. I know there have been previous threads on this topic in general of bridging the BR/timed gap, but I'm hoping for advice tailored to RC on this topic. Thanks so much in advance - you guys rock!!

Is it any faster/slower to approach Point at Issue Q's with JY's approach (reading first person's POV and scanning the answer choices to determine whether they agree or disagree, then doing the same for the second person's) than the usual LR one (reading both POV's and attacking the answer choices)?

I am planning on taking the September LSAT. I only began studying a few weeks ago, and have been following the study schedule provided by 7sage. However, I am most concerned with working on the logic games which is the section I struggle the most with. Does anyone know if it is necessary to follow the syllabus in the order in which the study schedule provides it? Or would I be fine skipping right to logic games?

Thanks!

There is a myth out there that on Strengthen questions the LSAT will always give us four definitive non-strengtheners and only one strengthener. But this problem is arguably definitive proof that the myth is false.

(B) is not the correct answer. Yet it is a necessary assumption of this argument, because if the social impact of none of the new drugs is poorly understood, then we don't have any reason for the premises to support the claim that we should be generally slowing down introduction of the new drugs to the marketplace. The clear assumption of this argument is that we don't have a good understanding of most of the new drugs on the marketplace, and (B) is a smaller assumption contained within that larger one, which makes it necessary. (Note that there is an argument that it is not necessary because the argument just has to assume that we don't have a "good" understanding of these new drugs, not that our undestanding is "poor". That view has merit, but I don't believe it is important to deal with here.)

In other problems, a necessary assumption has been a correct answer to a Strengthen question. And that makes sense, because providing a necessary assumption does, at a minimum, help the argument.

But here, although (B) is necessary, it is not correct, because (A) is better. Clearly, either not all necessary assumptions are strengtheners or some strengthen problems will require us to pick the best of multiple strengtheners.

Admin note: edited title

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

Do any of you guys recall what the beginning question(s) of the two real LR were or the beginning question of the experimental? I had three LR sections and Powerscore usually posts it but not for this administration. I did relatively well on 2 LR sections and did terrible on one of them. TYIA!

Admin note: edited title for clarity

I believe I lost most of my points in LR and feel really confident in LG and RC. Again, I had three LR sections so hopefully the harder one was an experimental. Anyone feel they may have managed to score above 170

Is it true that a Necessary Assumption answer choice can be an answer to a Strengthen question, but a Strengthen answer cannot be an answer to a NA question? It seems like NA denies a possible weakness and that can be consider a form of strengthening. Yes, no?

s

Hi team,

A quick question about JY's reasoning on this one:

One of his sub-game boards reads:

In: C/L

Out: C/L

Floaters: M/M/L

But wouldn't the contrapositive of the first rule make this untrue?

M/M --> C/C/L

not M/not M --> not C/not C/not L

So, the correct sub-game board would be:

In: C/L/M

Out: C/L/M

Floater: L

Am I missing something?

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-7-section-2-game-3/

I have to be missing something here. Can somebody explain to me how the answer in this question is (e) and not (c)? I just don't understand how inhaling smoke in a way that non-cigarette smokers inhale somehow puts them at an equal risk?

I asked this question last night and received good feedback that should have been able to help me tackle these problems yet I am still struggling with them. I have even went back to watch the lessons all over again and I am still having trouble finding the correct answer. First I read the question stem and then I read the stimulus and then paraphrase the stimulus sentence by sentence so that I can understand exactly what each premise is saying. That works until I get to the answer choices. When I watch JY'S explanation one minute he says something about making a generalized concept then the next minutes he is making an assumption versus an inference to me. I have tried questioning each answer choice by asking "why" or "does the text support this" and then I end up with my answer and it is wrong. How can I continue to get better at these questions or what I am potentially doing wrong or missing?Did sometime just completely go over my head?

Author POV

Purpose of paragraphs

Rough structure

What else?

I am still in the process of going through these lessons so I might be ahead of myself but is there a formula for tackling most strongly support questions. I understand that the stimulus is the premise and I have to piece together statements to make an inference of the conclusion but I find myself re-reading the stimulus over and over again then staring at the screen.

hey all,

i've been drilling RC for a few weeks, and I've been facing lots of fluctuations in RC. My timed score can range from like -4 to -7. My BR scores range from like -2 to -7.

I get really happy when I see a BR score of -2, but then really sad when I see a BR score of like -7.

How long did it take ppl to get consistent with RC - where they're consistently hitting like -1/-2? It's kinda frustrating to see this kind of fluctuation. And any advice on how to get there? Thanks!

Hey guys!

Here's the official June 2018 LSAT Discussion Thread. Please keep all discussions of the June 2018 LSAT here!

We know that everyone will be excited to discuss what was on the June 2018 LSAT, but here are some ground rules:

:warning: Don't mention specifics about the test! (e.g., "I got B for question 6" or "the 3rd LG was sequencing")

It can get both us and you in a lot of trouble!

:warning: Saying that the test was hard/easy is okay, but anything more specific is not okay!

:warning: The only exception: you can say which sections were real or experimental. For example, asking questions like “Was the LG with "flowers" experimental?” is okay. You can say “The LG section with "flowers" was real!” But you cannot say “the 3rd game of the real section was In/Out game.”

TL;DR: PLEASE don't talk specifics about June 2018 LSAT!

Have fun discussing!