Based on the LR problems I'm getting wrong (Weakening/Strengthening, Necessary Assumption, MSS, etc.) I think I'm having difficulty understanding support. Or at least understanding it concretely. For example with weaken questions, I know that I can't weaken the premises or the conclusion, and I know the "right" questions to ask (Even given these premises, the conclusion still doesn't necessarily follow because...) but unless the weaken question has causal or conditional reasoning it it, I'm not really sure how to approach it (aside from just kind of feeling it out). I have absolutely no problem finding the premises and conclusion and understanding which is which, or mapping out arguments. But the idea of support still feels kind of nebulous to me. If you have any ideas on how to make support more concrete, or suggestions on what made the concept click for you I'd really appreciate it!

So contrary to popular opinions regarding not taking full PTs right before the exam, I couldn't help myself bc I had bought PT 85 just a few days ago and wanted to take it before I sit for the exam (2nd take) on Saturday. I'm not sure if it was the nerves, the exam itself, or maybe even the fact that I may seem to getting burnt out but I ended up scoring 10 points lower than I usually do for pts (Usually hitting ~165). The 1st section (RC) was super difficult for me as well as the 2nd section (LR) and I ended up falling for many of the trap answers.

Feeling super discouraged and slightly freaking out about this exam and wanted to see if anyone had similar experiences with PT 85? I plan on just BR through this exam all of tomorrow and then taking Friday off before the exam to just watch netflix haha. Trying to tell myself that this Nov exam isn't the end all be all - there's still Jan or even March if need be.

Also, what games do you guys recommend to do right before the actual exam on Sat? One I can take with me to the testing location to do before the exam starts that will get my juices flowing.

Hey guys I know it is a little too late to improve now since the test is in two days ( There is always January), I am having a very hard time timing myself doing logic games. I have gone through the curriculm and done the foundational games 7-10 times. However, I still trip up when I see a game that has a sentence that throws me off and looks like a game i have never done before.

Are there situations where the foolproof method is not applicable because they came up with a new game and you will just have to "figure it out" ?

Completely lost on this question. Any explanations would be much appreciated.

Admin note: edited title

I'm having a hard time understanding this question at all. I've found very little help online for this question. Can anyone please explain.

"If the standards committee has a quorum...."

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-83-section-1-question-18/

Hey everyone,

I was wondering if any of my fellow 7sagers could offer some insight into this topic. I am planning on writing the Jan LSAT. LG is my weakest section, similar to most others on the LSAT journey. I really like JY's methods of teaching LG and I am beginning to get the hang of it but I feel really overwhelmed. I want to try the foolproof method of doing the games but I'm just wondering how I'm supposed to do one game so many times when there is a lot of other stuff to focus on. Between PTs, BR, drilling, watching explanations, and trying to stay sane, how did you guys adopt the foolproof method? There are just so many games and it would obviously be impossible to foolproof all of them in the mere 70some days that are remaining till the Jan LSAT, but how can I even get close? If you keep going back in a day or two to redo a previous game, I feel like you would barely get through any new content? I usually manage to make 20-25 hours to study each week and I've thought about just using the random bits of spare time in my day to foolproof a few games for fun every day. But still, I just don't see a way to move forward with studying while continuously redoing old games over and over. And the truth of the matter is that I could certainly use the foolproofing on every game I come across because I'm definitely slow in this section. I'm not aiming for a perfect score but I want to be as prepared as possible in order to reduce my anxiety surrounding LG.

Looking forward to hearing your ideas, suggestions, and thoughts. Please #help!

Hello!

This NA question is causing my blood pressure to rise.

I have trouble accepting E).

Negating E) doesn't destroy the argument. It's okay if medicine DOES reduce stress, as long as it isn't ONLY reducing stress. Maybe it reduces stress and inhibits hormone production.

I bring this up because in the second premise, it says that "any illness caused by stress--> treatable ONLY by the reduction of stress".

To bridge the gap between this premise and the conclusion, we need a NA that states "Medicine does not treat high blood pressure ONLY by reduction of stress", NOT "Medicine used to treat HBP does not reduce stress", which is what E) is saying.

I feel like if the premise had said, "any illness caused by stress--> treatable by the reduction of stress", AC E) would be absolutely the necessary assumption of the argument.

Please help. I'm so stuck :'( :'(

Thank you!!

Admin note: added link

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-48-section-1-question-20/

Reposting from my comment

This question has one of the most insane assumptions I’ve ever seen on the LSAT, I’m sorry but this should of been taken off the exam. The assumption that a twin watching another twin would fall more (or completely) under the watching self category and than the watching other category would be like assuming both twins looking in mirror would have difficulty telling which one they are.

D) In the studies of Identical twins, participants who observed their twin reading overreported by a significant amount how much time they themselves spent reading in the days that followed.

This cannot weaken part of the argument without strengthening the other part. Is a twin watching a twin more like watching an other or watching oneself? you know the answer. So you plug this in, it would actually strengthen the argument.

You basically have to assume that group this answer effects for sure (the watching other group) is somehow effected less than the group that you have to make a massive assumption for, so that the argument can be weakened.

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-81-section-2-question-22/

Hi! Just wondering if I'm missing something. Why are some of the video explanations missing from PT 85?

I'm taking the November 17th LSAT and took my second to last PT yesterday (PT 84). I felt incredibly discouraged after I saw my score of 162. I've been averaging 165-166 and haven't scored this badly in months (even scored a low 170's last week). While RC and LG are typically my weaker sections, I was surprised to find that I didn't do too hot on LR on this exam, and noticed that the LR seemed much more difficult and vague.

I watched PowerScore's prediction video about this upcoming test and they said that LR stimuli and question stems have been deviating from set formulas in recent years. However, I took PT83 last week and got a 166, so maybe I just had an off day last night? Has anyone taken PT84 and had a similar experience (LR seemed more difficult, esp. in comparison to other recent exams), or is it more likely I just had an off day?

If it comes down to it, I can take January's exam as well if I need to, but I'd also like to apply as early as possible. I'm taking PT82 tomorrow so I'll see how that goes. Best of luck to anyone else taking the test on Saturday!

https://thehustle.co/Soy-farmers-trade-war-China-America/?user_source=up_social_fb&utm_source=facebook1&medium=social&fbclid=IwAR3CC6YkLmCpOF4BMhJK2XZUZJGaBcvcTv7caFt2PTuZc1m2hbFIVHxp9Ws

Team soybeans, we messed up.

I took the LSAT in September and scored almost 10 points below my average. That said, I got right back on the horse and continued to study so I can redeem myself this Saturday. I got back the September exam through the LSAC portal and I am wondering if people think it would be beneficial to retake the September test or go over some sections this week? Or would it just bring back bad memories and ruin my mojo??

Should I diagram a "might" statement as an existential quantifier? Like "If Jack is smart, he might eat healthy." But, it doesn't have to be the case that Jack ever eats healthy, so that's why I don't think it's correct. Please correct me if I'm wrong

Hey everyone!

So I'm writing for the first time in 4 days and am trying to do what I can to make sure I don't bomb my logic games section. I certainly haven't fully mastered LG because I either score -1 or around -6. When I score -6 the bulk of those questions are from one game. In Blind review I can always do the game I screwed up without any difficulties so something else is causing this. I think it's mental or maybe I rush games that I can take 12 minutes on.

My plan is to just keep foolproofing and do the games that gave me the most trouble in the past. I'm not doing full pts or anything so I don't think I'd burnout at all.

Is it foolish to think I can pull off a great LG section on test day?

Hello, all! I am freaking out a bit because my RC has never dropped as much as it has this week and I am taking the exam this Saturday. If anyone could throw some tips out, that'd be greatly appreciated.

Hi Hello,

Can someone explain this question? As in, the correct ans. choice. I'm having a realllly hard time convincing myself that it's "necessary". #help

Admin note: edited title

When I started my LSAT journey, RC was the section I was least concerned about. I finished all the passages, and would get maybe -5. It was something I could see improving with time. Then I did a prep program (Powerscore tutoring for anyone who's curious) and now, I'm only getting to 3 passages. More troubling is the fact that I seem to be having trouble with questions that ask me to infer or guess how the author would feel about something. How do I overcome that? Anyone else have trouble with these sorts of questions? What helped? Any tactics/and or strategies would be really appreciated!

Hey everybody, I'm trying to decide on what I should do in regards to the next LSAT:

I'm registered to take the November 17th test, but as of right now, I'm not happy with where I am scoring. I've gotten better at LR, but worse at RC at least on my practice exam that I took today.

The 7sage program is helping a lot, but I'm nervous I'm not going to do as well as I want on this upcoming exam. I have already taken it once and was unhappy with my score, so I obviously have to improve. I am debating whether I should wait and take the January 26th test, but I'm worried that it may be cutting it a bit close to application deadlines (most schools I am looking to apply to have a March 15th application deadline.)

If anyone has any advice as to what I should do, that would be great!

Thank you

I understand why (A) is correct, as well as why the wrong answers are incorrect. That being said, I'm having trouble identifying the type of flaw/assumption that this argument is making.

Is this a study flaw? Is the author assuming that the data from this study is solid enough to prove that there's no causal link between tv advertising and cereal preferences?

Usually, when I attempt weaken questions, I try and identify the type of flaw/assumption that the argument is making. Here, I couldn't do so, and just had to get to the right answer through process of elimination. When I inserted answer choice (A) into the premises, I saw how it weakened the conclusion, but I still don't know which type of flaw this question falls into.

Practice Test 42, Question 19 doesn't seem to offer any correct answer choice. (Please someone correct me.) The correct answer is supposed to be A.

While I have seen a slow, but steady timed PT score while prepping, and I was only a few questions from meeting my goal score on previous timed, in person PTs, I just took an in person timed PT and completely froze after the first section, thinking I bombed it. Now I'm really shaken up and am not sure what to to do with just a few days left. Should I finish/retake this PT? Should I just drill? How much should I drill? Should I postpone the test? I feel utterly defeated and as though the months of prep didn't even make a difference.

How do you spend those last 7 days?

I'm currently stressing out considering I completed the base 7sage course and have seen great increases in my scores (155 on diagnostic, 163 average, 167 max) throughout PT 30's-40's. My all time highest was just last week on PT 44 when I got a 167, so riding that high I took PT 85 this morning and got a 158. I haven't scored so low since July, and while I know it there is a degree of variety, a drop of 9 points within a week is very concerning. I have heard that recent PT's are slightly different, could this have contributed to it? I usually average about -4.4 on LR, -6.1 on LG, and -6.6 on RC. On 85 I got -7 on each LR, -6 on LG, and -9 on RC.

I'm trying not to let this get to my head, but November is my last chance to take the test (3rd try within a year). I could definitely use some advice on how to spend this final week. Should I go back to the basic lessons, keep drilling, or take another recent PT to hopefully do better and get the bad taste out of my mouth going into test day? As of now I am leaning towards taking another PT tomorrow for reassurance but I also don't want to burn myself out. No matter what I am taking Thursday and Friday completely off from studying for peace of mind.

Hey guys :)

I was just wondering if anyone has advice regarding RC. I've tried drilling the memory method again and again but it just doesn't seem to be working. RC is the thing holding me back from hitting 170 because I don't have the slightest chance of even reading one of the passages. I'm stuck and I'm not sure where to go from here. I think I'm understanding the material but I'm spending about 6-7 minutes answering the questions.

Can someone explain this to me? This is a pfmr question but the answer looks like a contrapositive based on JY's explanation. For some reason I can't seem to understand why this is flawed and the comments don't have any additional help. Thanks.

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-74-section-4-question-25/