What are the parts of this argument?

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

I know it’s probably been discussed before, but what should I expect on test day? I’ve taken the LSAT before as the paper format. I would expect same registration process blah blah blah, but during the test as it is digital, I’m sure we’ll have scratch paper for the logic games section, but what about the others? Any advice would be much appreciated and thank you in advance.

I wonder whether can we make an inference of A←s→C from A‑m→B‑m→C? (reference: PT62 section 2 Q19)

For sure, it would be an invalid argument if an inference of A‑m→C is made.

Neither the lessons from The Valid Argument Forms nor the from The Invalid Argument Forms include this inference.

Seems ok to me.

Feeling a headache today, which is reminding me to send positive vibes and wish calming, clear thoughts to everyone. Let's remember to lighten the study load this week, breathe, slow down and stay confident. We are superstars, and we're going to knock it out of the park!

Powerscore says 1 way to weaken a casual conclusion is to show that “Although effect occurs, the cause did not occur.”

This is bc (According to powerscore Lr bible) the effect is always produced by the same cause.

But in PT 88.4.24, AC A seems to show no cause but effect, which seems to fit into powerscore’s definition of weakening causality. Is AC A wrong because of “sometimes”, which makes that AC too weak?

For me, AC A seems to mean in cases without traumatic experience, medical condition causes cortisol change.

Given that the original conclusion is traumatic event causes cortisol change, would AC A fall into the no cause, but effect category? Would it be right if the word “sometimes” was removed from AC A

Thanks

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

I got this question wrong because I misidentified the conclusion. I thought the last sentence was the conclusion and the second sentence was a premise(which didn’t seem that relevant at the time). Both sentences are conditional.

My question is in these questions, how can I tell what is the main conclusion? I was not super familiar with the topic(microbes/methane) and I had trouble identifying the main conclusion, so I just poorly assumed the last sentence was the main conclusion. But how could have I had known that the 2nd sentence was the main conclusion and not the last, given that both sentences were conditional statements and it was not super obvious or intuitive (and it was hard using the “because” test of “because P, then C” since it was difficult to determine what was P and C due to the obscure stimulus topic on microbes/methane?

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

I am registered for the November exam and hoping to apply for the 2020 cycle. I have been studying on and off since mid-June, seriously studying since August. I took a diagnostics originally and score 136. The last PT I took a few weeks ago, I got a 150. Would like to be in the 160s but I'm now thinking that might not be possible given the short timeframe. Should I push my exam date to January or just wait a full cycle? Is taking the January exam too late to apply?

So I am scheduled to finish the CC this Friday. Haven't taken a full PT since the diagnostic but, should this be enough time with PTs etc to be prepared for the Nov exam/?

Thank you!

So I just printed out the ticket for the test next Monday and was checking test location on google map. However, the weird thing is that the hotel name (which is the test center) does not match the address provided on the ticket! It says “fiesta Henderson hotel,” which seem to locate in Henderson rather than Las Vegas. The address on the ticket is “3510E Tropicana ave, Las Vegas, NV, 89119,” and google map shows no hotel at all in that address. I’m so freaked out!! The test is only one week away and I need to fly to Las Vegas to take it. Should I contact the hotel or LSAC? How fast will LSAC respond? Should I write an email or just call them?

Anything, based on 7Sage's difficulty measure, between level 1-3 I do with ease, I can spot the conclusion, the support, and prephrase an answer almost verbatim. Not quite the same mastery with level 4's, but I can still spot the flaw easily and prephrase a good answer. These level 5 problems are a completely different story. Sometimes I have difficulty even spotting the conclusion, I cannot spot the flaw, and definitely not prephrase a good answer. It is like everything falls apart with these questions, and sometimes when I think I got it down, I am stunned to find out what the right answer actually was. I do these problems with maybe 20-40% accuracy, 20% on a bad day and 40% on a good day. I would like some advice on how to get better at these tough LR problems. Any help appreciated.

I struggled with figuring this out when I first started doing logic games so I hope it helps. If it's a grouping game where we are told each element within one category of elements must be played "at least x amount" (or some equivalent statement, and generally it will be 'at least once') it can be made into a chart. This is because with 'at least' there is no limit on how many times each individual game piece can reappear, making them not unique.

I do well on most logic games and have also improved in Logical Reasoning. However, I have seen little to no improvement in RC and am unsure of how to accomplish any sense of improvement. Can you please suggest ways in which I can attempt to improve?

I especially encounter this problem when I run into difficult passages which I cannot decipher in the section but also in passages which I think I understand the content but end up having multiple wrong answers in.

I'm seeing a lot of LR questions worded with statements like "more likely" or "less likely."

e.g. people with university degrees are more likely to have dogs than cats

Can I interpret this sentence as university degree (positively CORR) dogs? Is there a better way to understand more likely/less likely sentences? Thanks in advance!

Hey guys, could someone help me understand why (e) is the correct answer? I seem to be able to produce at least one possible world in which everyone has flower arrangements with at least one use of lilies in it (U gets the LL block), and in which there are two people with the HR block (U and Z). As far as I can tell, I've got the antecedent setup/questions mostly right. It's just this last question that flummoxes me.

Thank you so much! Sorry for violating any norms here: I just signed up for the course and haven't yet got a sense of the norms yet!

Admin. note: slightly edited discussion title to fit formatting guidelines: "PT#.S#.Q# (G#) - brief description"

Hi everyone,

I had been practicing with the LSAT official books (50s, 60s, 70s) and I recently purchased the 80s via 7sage. I noticed that in the 80s, there's a bit of a shift with the LR. I can't quite describe the changes, but I feel like there is an increased of "debatable" questions/questions that push you to make assumptions in ways that earlier tests didn't... for example, in PT 83 section 1 #18 (LR):

If the standards committee has a quorum, then the assembly will begin today at 6:00. If the awards committee has a quorum, then the assembly will begin today at 7:00. (MBT)

In the explanation, it says that we should "safely assume" that if the assembly starts at 6 then it does not start at 7 and vice versa, however, I feel like this prompt doesn't necessarily show any indication that both things couldn't happen. I made the correct assumption based on the answer options and the wording "will begin today" (something can only "begin" once), but the greater point is, it seems like the newer LSATs include more subtleties and newer patterns like this question.... am I crazy or am I on to something?

If I'm not crazy, then for those who have scored 165+, I'm curious how you adapted to these changes.

I had been scoring in the high 160s, low 170s for the earlier PTs, but my score dropped to low 160s on both the real LSAT and on 80s PTs. I have 2 more fresh 80s that I haven't taken yet, and I'm struggling to figure out how to prepare leading up to the November test. I'd love to hear others' experiences on adapting to subtle changes in LR.

Thanks!

Even though conditional logic seemed easy when I went through the CC, it continues to trip me up on harder questions, so I'm reviewing some basics:

To have a valid conditional statement, the SOME or MOST statement must come first followed by the ALL statement. (You can't conclude ANYTHING if the ALL statement comes before a SOME or MOST statement.) So A some B->C, therefore A some C is valid. Also A most B->C, therefore A most C is valid.

In a valid argument, the conclusion must be true. Basic valid argument examples include affirming the sufficient (A->B, A, therefore B ) ; denying the necessary (A->B, /B, therefore /A); transitive property (A->B->C, therefore A->C).

Other valid arguments show us instances where one thing (A) arrows out to two other things and there's therefore overlap between those two other things:

If A->B and A->C, then B some C.

If A->B and A some C, then B some C.

If A->B and A most C, then B some C.

If A most B and A most C, then B some C.

Invalid arguments mean the conclusion doesn't have to be true. Examples include affirming the necessary (A->B, B, therefore A); denying the sufficient (A->B, /A, therefore /B), and putting the ALL statement before the MOST or SOME statement (A->B some C, therefore A some C OR A->B most C, therefore A most C).

Other invalid arguments show us that we can't conclude anything from 2 some SOME statements:

A some B some C, therefore A some C (transitive property does NOT apply to SOME statements)

A most B most C, therefore A most C (transitive property does NOT apply to MOST statements)

A some B, A some C, therefore B some C.

You cannot take a contrapositive of a SOME or MOST statement.

Quantifiers have specific meanings on the LSAT that are often counterintuitive. Some is the trickiest one because it means at least one, but could be limited to one, and could go up to all. Be suspicious 😒 of ACs that use any variation of some, such as sometimes and somewhat. Always ask, “just one??” Many sucks too because is the same as some; it is not MOST. Few means some are, most are not. In most cases, we're talking about 3 or 4, but we can think of the range as up to 50 because more than that is MOST.

Not sure whats going on... Usually when I do LG from super recent tests like 80s and 70s i get -2 max. When I do games from older tests I can usually get the games right in under time and all right. Recently just did 63 and 65, the games definitley arent hard. I went -5 and -6 which I dont think i have done since I finished the CC. Is this a horrible sign or emergency? Im freaked out

Walked away from the September LSAT with a 166. My GPA for my best three years is a 3.86 and a 3.92 for my best two years. Planning on going to school in Ontario. Should I write again in October?

My last 15 PTs have all been over 170.

Hi there,

Is there a suggested list of games to foolproof by game type?

I know JY did it for in/out games here: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-33-section-4-game-2/

Does something similar exist for the other game types?

#help

So I know this is a tough flaw question.

With tough questions like this - I almost always double check line 1 with the conclusion at the end, because there is always this jump that somehow (or a lot of time is the fall)... routinely with never in this case.

However, knowing this - I just don't understand/struggling to translate AC D.

I know B C E were just pure garbage to me in the beginning. I was left with A and D. A is wrong b/c of domain jump of "avoid chaos" - we do not know what accomplishes this.

Any help would be awesome... thanks

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-41-section-1-question-22/

THANK YOU JY and the whole 7sage team!! I'm over the moon, literally didn't believe my score when I got the email.

Hey all, so I saw my score very early this morning expecting to be somewhere near the median of where I was PTing (which was around the 153-157 range), and I ended up getting a 149. Obviously, this isn't seriously lower as I make it out to be, but it's confusing to me and i'm more shocked than angry or upset. I felt very confident during this test, and I had a ridiculous amount of energy even up to the end, so I can't blame test fatigue or zoning out. I ended up having a terribly bad RC and LR #2, both dipping in double digit incorrect, which is not even remotely close to where I falter on PTs.

So I know the obvious answer is just move on, and I want to move on, but I also want to improve as much as I can in the short time I have until the October LSAT. I've seen a ton of improvement in LR, LG, and i've peaked at around -6/-7 for RC. I don't feel like I would see major gains in RC so I don't feel like it's worth re-investing into it this late, and I genuinely don't think i'm that bad at it, so i'm just super confused if I should take this test's result into consideration for where I need to patch my wounds. My current study plan has tons of LG foolproofing because I think I can definitely get a really great score on LG realistically. I think I have stagnated for a long time on LR and RC with zero to minimal gains for a few weeks, but I can't neglect 75% of the test obviously.

So yeah, any advice is heavily appreciated. I know i'm likely overthinking everything but I'd hate to have another nightmare scenario happen and be forced to either apply with a low score or apply late (or just delay everything)

Help! I still have not received my September score. I did not receive an email and my account still has the test scores listed as unavailable. Any thoughts?

who agrees

Why foolproof 1-35 in particular? I will have had about 3 months study leading up to Nov administration, and have done most logic games sections 19 - 70s. I haven't however touched a pre-19 PT. I'm foolproofing some of the middle ones now, 30s - 60s, but wondering if this is like..wrong... Does FP need to be done with PT 1-35 or is that just a suggestion so as not to burn thru sections of what would otherwise be better to use for full timed PTs (like I've done, admittedly stupidly)?