For some reason I can't seem to find the explanations for how the correct answer was obtained for the Flaw Q's I'm working on from the question bank/prep tests

Hola 7Sagers,

I'm super struggling with this question simply because I feel like the answer makes a big jump. It almost seem like its a sufficient assumption question. I just don't see where the stimulus indicates where the public support in question indicates there was not any indication of public benefit.

Can anyone help?

Thank you!

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-30-section-2-question-20/

So I’ve been wondering... consider this: If something is legal, then it is not illegal.

Therefore, if it is illegal, then it is not legal (illegal) via the contrapostive.

So we can conclude an act can only be legal or illegal.

Is this considered a valid argument?

Original text ----------

Hello!

I have a question regarding an embedded conditional. Does the interpretation change on the base of where the comma is located at like the following exmples? Thanks for your help in advance, I appreciate it!

If S, then /B unless F

= S → /B unless F

= S → (B→F)

= S and B → F

If S, then /B, unless F

= /F → (S→/B)

= /F and S → /B

Answer ----------

[S and B -> F] and [/F and S -> /B] are the same!!!!!!!!!!!!

I see this answer choice often (The argument ambiguously uses x, or argument relies on interpreting a key term differently), and JY always says this answer choice is often used as the correct answer. But I feel like I have never noticed it, and don't really have a good understanding of how to spot a stimulus that does this. Do any of you guys have any tips or resources on how to tackle this kind of flaw question? Especially with the harder ones, there are so many possible flaws that my pre-phrased answer just doesn't help.

Hey everyone,

I've gotten to the point where I'm quite confident in my abilities about most of the games, but I'm having a lot of trouble with getting the In/Out games to click, especially when it comes to mastering the conditional rules and logic chains. If anyone has good suggestions about good strategies for mastering these in particular or tips about how they've been used on the recent LSATs in particular, that would be very much appreciated.

In particular, the questions where a sufficient in a long logic chain is failed or the necessary is met are particularly vexing for me.

Looking forward to hearing from y'all!

So, for RC I seem to have a common issue on my PTs. I always seem to run out of time. I finish 3 passages and the questions (usually only skipping one or two) but never the last one. On all of the three passages I get all of the correct answers minus the ones I skip and guess on. When I BR, I then am able to correctly answer all of the questions for the passage I missed.

Just wondering if perhaps I am taking too long to read/comprehend the passage? Or am I spending too long on certain questions? Also just looking for some RC tips in general.

I have spent too much time to crack the formal logic questions. Is there any method that would help me to deal quickly and effectively?

Thanks

Anyone else struggling to keep up with LSAT study and full-time school? These upper division classes are insane with the amount of time they require.

Hi all,

I just discovered the analytics section of the grader program, and it’s very clear that I can raise my RC score by getting better at the question stems involving inferring the authors perspective.

Yet, there is nothing in the syllabus that is obviously for working on this type of RC question. As my exam is 9/8, I don’t have time to watch all the RC videos. Can anyone point me in the right direction?

Thanks!

Danny

I found the subject as well as the structure discussed in the video to be similar to a typical RC science passage. Good practice to do low / high res summary write ups. And who knows, maybe your next LSAT will talk about the physics of curling.

I just was going over RRE questions in BR and a strategy came to mind on how to eliminate or pick answer confidently. I would say most, if not all, RRE questions are asking one to explain why something is different or despite them seeming different, why they are similar.

In the process of BR, I found this approach to be helpful: step one, depending on if one is looking for a difference or a similarity, make sure the correct aspect is present in the AC; step two, ask WHY this difference/similarity is important.

I write this because I've seen a trend where I get stuck between two or three ACs on hard RRE questions. I know exactly what I am looking for in the realm of differences or similarities, which usually leaves two or three left, but then I get stuck because LSAC writes the diff/simi cleverly. Taking a second and asking "why is it important" has made me totally and confidently eliminate answer choices that looked correct to me before I asked it. Asking "why?" seems to focus my thinking on how the AC's proposition is relevant in its attempts to fix the problem more clearly then just reading it and seeing how it "sounds" when pushed back to the stimulus.

I'm not sure if everyone else already does it this way, but I thought I would share what helped me.

Thanks and study hard!

Hi all, I think my problem with LR right now is not having enough time to do a thorough second round. I have tried for a long time to get through the 25 questions in 25 minutes but have not been able to do it. Right now, I usually complete the questions in ~30 minutes, leaving me ~5 minutes for a second round. I do try and skip questions--I skip around 3/4 if I can't understand the stimulus/don't like any answer choices.

If I had 10 full minutes, I really think I could get my score higher. For those who have achieved answering 25 questions in 25 minutes--how did you do it??

I go from -0 to -5 on the hardest passages, independent of subject matter. I literally have no idea why any of these variations happen. I can usually BR them -0 or -1. Ugh help me.

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/1d/70/c7/1d70c7ba7719ddf0c422518c0b2210e0--french-lessons-french-class.jpg

^Me while I'm reading

Title says it all! What are you reading to keep your mind sharp for good ol' reading comprehension.

I find that I often circle the correct answer and then erase it and switch to an incorrect error. On my last PT this cost me about three points. Also, if I go back to my circled questions when I still have time remaining in the section, when I change my answers I often change them from the correct answer to an incorrect one. Has anyone had any experience with this/have any ideas to solve it? I think that sometimes I don't really understand why the right answer is right but I can "tell" that it's right, but not knowing for sure makes me hesitate. This is specifically with LR, not really in the other sections.

Apologize in advance if this has been touched upon, but I was wondering how long it took for you guys to see significant improvements in reading comp from the memory method/any other tips that helped you along the way with it?

Hey Sagers,

So I am writing in September and the one area I am struggling with is MISC LGs. I do well on the other game types but when I get an MISC game it totally throws me for a loop ( I think I am at 10% accuracy over 16 Qs). My question is for those of you who have had similar problems did you find fool proofing older MISC LGs to be helpful? I know a lot of the older games of this type are driven by a specific pattern so I'm wondering if fool proofing those games is a good use of time when the test date is right around the corner. Im currently on PT 74 (started at 66) I'm thinking either keep taking PTs and BRing and fool proofing those games, or set aside 2-3 days and fool proof all the MISC games up until 74. I think theres like 25 or so. Thanks!

How would one write "A then B or C but not both"?

I usually use "A -> B/C not both" when solving games, but I was wondering if there is any other way to rewrite this statement.

According to our conditional translations, I think the statement could also be written as A -> (B(-)/C), but it looks very weird...

Can anyone help? Thanks :)

Can anyone lead me in the right direction for help with diagramming quantifiers? I’m using a company called LSATMAX and for some reason it’s just not clicking for me. I feel as if for both sufficient & necessary conditions and quantifiers that i will have to go back and find better understanding for both. I use it correctly for most must be true questions but not for questions dealing with “most closely parallels”, “flaw questions”, “must not be true questions “ i actually haven’t even gotten to those sections yet to drill any question types from “parallel reasoning” or “flawed”. I also have powerscore and LSAT trainer for after i finish the core curriculum as well, but for now i need help with quantifiers.

Hi everyone,

I'm confused about the difference between Sufficient Assumptions vs. Necessary Assumptions that act as a "bridge."

I understand that sometimes answer choices can be both sufficient and necessary.

And I know that sometimes the LSAT writers include a sufficient assumption answer choice as a trap when the question stem asks for a necessary assumption.

Would anyone be able to shed some light on the difference between Sufficient Assumptions and Necessary Assumptions that act as a "bridge"?

As an example, PT 44, Section 4, question 7 is relevant. https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-44-section-4-question-07/

Thank you!

My scores (in said section) don't fluctuate when LR/LG are the first sections but whenever RC pops up as the first section, I go from getting a maximum of -5 to a minimum of -10. I'm planning to take all my PT's henceforth with RC as the first section, was wondering if anyone here had some other tips/insights? Thanks:)

As stated in the title, why would we write rules for logic games on the first page of a game, answer one question, and then waste a minute or so re-writing them on the next page? It seems to me that it would be a faster approach to write all the rules on the second page from the get-go, answer page 1's question, then dive straight into page 2's questions.

I suppose that the time taken to write the rules might take long enough to negate any time benefit, as you have to flip back and forth. Either way, you have to flip back and forth at some point, so the only time saved would be on the initial time spent writing the rules, not time spent flipping back and forth between pages.

EDIT: After testing this out a few times, I noticed I was more prone to error in writing rules down. So that is definitely one concern with this approach of writing rules straight onto the second page.

As the September test date is fast approaching I find myself feeling more and more anxious. I wrote the June sitting and did better than I usually do on the LG section (-3), while scoring average on the LR and RC, ending up with a 159.

Now that I am back to studying and PT-ing I am feeling more anxious that my September score will not improve, or may go down compared to June due to my better than expected score in the LG section. I really want 165+ and am super tense/anxious thinking about it all the time!

Any tips other than to just blind review and practice as much as I can?

I know everyone recommends reading the magazines The Economist and the Atlantic for improving reading comprehension.

But it seems philosophy majors should have a distinct advantage in reading dense abstruse passages. Should I be reading philosophy books on the side to improve reading comprehension?