can someone explain the new LR explanation layout (the quintile range, 2 sets of difficulty ratings)

on LR explanations, next to the AC's there's like a box plot chart. Also, there are 2 sets of difficulty ratings. Sometimes they're different - like one is 5 star and another is 3 star.

Can someone explain what this all means? Thanks.

Do you guys skip questions in RC?

If so, do you come back to them at the end of passage or do you do the section as a whole and address skipped questions later?

If not, why don't you skip (unless of course you are extremely good at RC.)

A while back I completed the "Introduction to Logic Games & Sequencing Games" and "Sequencing Games with a Twist" sections of the CC. I was struggling, so I decided to foolproof the games in those sections before moving on in the curriculum. I went with the Pacifico attack strategy for foolproofing, because it seemed straightforward and organized.

As of now, I have finished foolproofing all the games in the "Introduction to Logic Games & Sequencing Games" section, and most of the games in "Sequencing Games with a Twist".

I have come across the following issue: On my second attempt at the game (after watching the video), I usually do pretty well and may even hit the target time. My third attempt (the next day) is pretty good as well, usually even better than the second attempt. However, when I attempt the game for the 4th time, (a week later) I either get questions wrong or I exceed the target time. It seems that I easily forget how to efficiently make the inferences. Therefore, I am currently at a bit of a loss regarding what I should do next.

Any advice would be sincerely appreciated!

TID

RC is my worst section! Any tips that have helped you improve a lot?

I noticed that I have been struggling with In/Out games. Therefore, I’m specifically targeting fool proofing these types of games. The plan is to go from easy, medium, and hard. I’ve done Prep Test 24,29,48,54,63 game 1’s and get all of those in 5 mins or less and it didn't even take me 4 try's. However, I’ve been struggling with Prep Test 36 game 1. I’ve watched JY’s video for it a number of times, and I have attempted the game at least 5 times.I'm still getting only 1-3 right, I know the answers of the others but I'm having a hard time understanding how they are right, and finding why them on my own (4-6). Any tips on understanding specifically 4 and 5?

Admin note: edited title

Most videos including one below show a chart : where is the complete chart

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/logic/

This question asks us to find an answer choice that matches the flaw in the stimulus.

The form of the argument in the stimulus and the form of the argument in the correct answer choice are not at all identical, and this is the difficulty of this question.

The argument in the stimulus says:

Stallworth claimed that [A]

A+B --> C

/C

Therefore, /B

A = Stallworth supported the proposal

A+B = Henning also supported the proposal (the "also" was referencing Stallworth's support)

C = proposal received government approval

Answer choice A says:

TV news claimed that [A and B]

A --> /B

Therefore, /B

A = the traffic accident occurred on Aylmer Street

B = Morgan witnessed the accident from his kitchen window

The TV news made two claims (claim A and claimB), then a not both rule (A --> /B) is stated. Since both A and B can't be true at the same time the author concludes that B must not have happened. However, the author is ignoring the possibility that it was A that didn't happen.

Answer choice B says:

City government claimed that [A]

A private institute claimed that [B]

Therefore, the city government is to blame for A

A = 15% of city residents are behind on their property taxes

B = property taxes in the city are higher than average

The flaw here is that the author assumes B caused A, rather than a number of alternative possibilities such as high unemployment or people being distracted by studying for the LSAT every day and forgetting to pay their property taxes. The other unwarranted assumption is that the city government sets the taxes. Maybe the citizens vote to determine the tax rate. It's even possible that the county determines the property tax rate in this city. It would not be logical to blame the city government for something they have no control over.

Answer choice C says:

According to Kapoor [A]

According to Galindo [B]

Therefore, if B --> /A

A = haz waste site does not pose danger to the community

B = haz waste site is on an unsuitable tract of land

Two different ideas (danger and suitability) are discussed but assumed to be the same idea. We don't know why Galindo thinks the land is unsuitable. Maybe it's because this land is really rocky and it's expensive to dig holes in the ground for burying waste. Maybe the hazardous waste just smells bad and Galindo doesn't want to drive by the waste site on the way to work every day.

Answer choice D says:

According to rivals [A]

B --> C

Therefore, Harris is a poor choice for mayor

A = Harris favors the interests of property developers

B = a good mayor

C = willing to stand up to property developers

This argument assumes that Harris is not willing to stand up to property developers. Again, this is an argument that conflates two different ideas (favoring the interests of developers and being willing to stand up to developers). There is no reason Harris can't do both. Also, even if Harris isn't "a good mayor," he could still be a better choice for mayor than anyone else who is willing to do it.

Answer choice E says:

Latest government figures claim [A]

B

Therefore, /A

A = regional unemployment rate declined in the last six months

B = the region lost thousands of manufacturing jobs

The assumption is that the unemployment rate can't go down in a period when manufacturing jobs were lost. However, maybe it was Amazon that bulldozed a factory in the region and put up an office building. The two ideas (regional unemployment and jobs in a specific industry) are not the same.

Admin note: edited title

.

Hey Guys,

So i took the November LSAT and got my score back a couple weeks ago (143). I need a 151-154 in order to attend the law schools of my choice but I am really struggling with LG, but I am encouraged because it is the easiest section to improve upon. When I took my November LSAT, I got the LG section twice, and I noticed that the language was noticeably different than the language used on the example videos provided to us by JY. Has anyone noticed this as well? I can preform the problems, I just struggle with identifying which game board the passage is revealing to me. The words used to reveal which board to use on older LSATS (LSATS in which JY uses as example to teach the curriculum) are different the language used on newer LSAT LG section.

Hey guys, I live in Austin and I am looking for someone to study for the January LSAT with me. Please comment or dm if you are from the same area and want to study together!

Hi everyone,

I am having trouble seeing the repeating structure patterns in RC in Art and Law passages. However, I DO see the structures in Science and Social Science passages. I have great difficulty when reading them the first time and most of the time I can't see the patterns even when I am reviewing them. I seem to be able to make low res summaries that apply but they don't seem to fit into cookie cutter molds. I am hoping that by seeing these molds I can see the structure quicker.

My question is: are their cookie cutter structures for Art and Law passages in RC? If so, do you have some examples from the CC?

Thanks everyone!!

Hello,

Please help me out with this LR question.

I can infer that Clarifssa definitely disagrees with D, but how can we know what Myungsook thinks doing natural science successfully requires? From the stimulus, I cannot infer that Myungsook has any opinion on whether natural science requires observations not stated in precisely quantitative terms.

Myungsook states that converting observations into numbers requires observations. She doesn't mention the requirements of doing natural science successfully.

Thank you!

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-c2-section-2-question-24/

Hi,

I am looking for a tutor who can help me get to where I need to be for my LSAT in 3 weeks.

My last LSAT score from Oct was 167, and I have been getting -2 to -4 for LG in my PTs. I am ashamed to say that LG is my current worst section since I have been scoring -1 to -2 for my RC and -2 to -3 for my LRs.

**I need to get to -0 to -1 for my LG in three weeks' time.**I am dedicated to this goal in terms of time and work.

My LG actually worsened as my other sections improved and I probably have became accustomed to some bad habits and faulty techniques. If you are confident you could help me, please DM me.

Time zone: gmt +11

Thanks!!

Hi all!

I have some questions pertaining to RC and would greatly appreciate any thoughts from you! In my cold diagnostic, I got about 5 wrong; after almost 6 months of studying, however, I still got the same amount of questions wrong. At this point, since I have been practicing the memory method/paragraph summary and passage structure for a while, I can get most of the facts straight from the passage. Yet still I make (often stupid) mistakes - for the ones that I didn't get right the first take, a majority of them have answers that are now so obviously right that I just want to travel back in time, grab me at my shoulders and shout "what the hell is wrong with you to choose anything but the right answer!" Is this something that you might have encountered too?

Also on the level of certainty of picked answers on RC. I seldom feel fully confident about my choices; I might be able to explain why I chose certain ACs during review, but in a time-constraint PT, I am almost always guided by a mysterious force called "that feels right."

All kinds of suggestion on RC would be greatly appreciated!!

Thanks so much in advance!

So it’s about that time I get serious with my life and really buckle down. I finished the June 2007 LSAT and scored a 58 RAW (150 cold diagnostic) with the breakdown of 13 LG, 14 on both LR and 17 on RC. My question for y’all is... what now?

I found that almost all the questions I answered were correct but I was getting lost in individual questions and ran out of time.

I’m scheduled to take the LSAT in January but I set it up as a preliminary evaluation to get myself more comfortable for March. I don’t expect to be scoring anywhere near the 160s for January but how do I set myself up for success in March?

Any tips or advice would be greatly appreciated.

Hi All,

In the LG CC, there are a series of exercises after each section, e.g. sequence game is followed by a core of practice exercises. Do the sum of all the exercises equal all of the games from PT 1-35? Or are they only a handful of them and do I need to print out the logic game bundles in total? Thank you!

Hey everyone,

Can anyone explain the difference between the main point of a passage and a passage's purpose?

I understand that the passage's purpose answers the question "Why is the author writing this?" but to me, the answer to that question seems to be the main point.

For example, if a passage is about how new scientific research techniques have allowed us to definitively conclude that climate change is real, the answer to "why is the author writing this?" would be "to tell me how new scientific research techniques have allowed us to conclude that climate change is real." That would imply that main point and purpose are more or less the same, so I feel like I'm thinking about this wrong.

Thanks!!

If you're taking the January 2019 LSAT and your account is inconveniently set to expire a few days before the test date, you can get a free 14-day extension from this page: https://classic.7sage.com/free-extension/

For those of you who are expiring after, good luck on the LSAT! We here at 7Sage are rooting for you.

Hi all,

I've been spending weeks full-proofing games, and I have neglected LR as a result. My LR is very weak, and I am finishing only about 18 out of 25 or 26 questions on average and getting only 13/18 correct.

My BR score isn't much better, I'm able to get a total of about 17 of 25 after BR.

I scored 151 on PT 70 with a BR of 161.

The break down is as follows:

LG: 17/23 (23/23BR)

LR 1: 15/25 (17/25 BR)

LR 2: 14/25 (17/26 BR)

RC: 12/27 (18/27 BR)

My goal is 156-157. I am confident in my ability to get my LG consistently at -3, but is it possible to see an increase in LR in 2-3 weeks?

Thanks for reading, this post is quite long.

Please see link below

June 2007 LSAT link:

https://www.lsac.org/sites/default/files/legacy/docs/default-source/jd-docs/sampleptjune.pdf

Hello Everyone,

This morning I received a grant of accommodation for upcoming Jan session. Last minute I am planning to change the test date to March. Do you know if my accommodation is going to follow the new test date? Or, will I need to reapply? Is there something else I need to know before initiating change of date in order to not loose additional time I received?

Thank you,

Andrii

When I am taking a timed section of LR, I am missing around 8-11 questions. This is usually due to lack of time and anxiety. I usually BR every single question, and I end up missing 3-5. I usually spend 35-70 minutes to BR an entire section. I am taking the January test, so I need to figure a way to bring my timed score down to my BR score. I am sure there have been more people in my boat, so what methods did you use to bring that score down. I am thinking to do timed sections back to back to really get a feel of the time constraint (i.e 4 LR sections/day). Let me know what has and has not worked for you. Thank you so much.

So I was looking at the logic games section that appeared on the Dec. LSAT and noticed that there was a miscellaneous game -- which I've heard are rare in general on the exams. Since there was one on the most recent exam before January, does that in any way mean that the odds of us seeing one are lower?

I've realized for some tough strengthen NA Q's, the right AC also kinda functions like a NA, and by applying the negation test, it actually weakens the argument.

Often, these tough NA questions have right AC that are "defenders," which defend against an alternative explanation/fact. So if you negate a "defender," it'll make the argument weaker/more vulnerable. (Example is PT 74.1.17)

I was wondering if some people also considered applying the negation test to strengthen AC's?

Again, I'm not advocating to do this for ALL strengthen Q's, but just those tough ones in which the AC's are very subtle, and pulling out the negation test from the toolbox may prove helpful.

Any thoughts or suggestions appreciated. Thank you!

I have about a 10th grade level knowledge of science so science passages about things like fractal curves or the ocean floor spreading theory are completly abstract for me. Does anyone have advice on understanding complex science passages?