I am stumped by the question PT44-S4-Q7, and the following is the question:

Admin note: edited; violation of rule 4. "Do not post LSAT questions, any copyrighted content, or links to content that infringe on copyright."

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-44-section-4-question-07/

the model is: MC→E

(C→MC）

therefore, C→E

I am wondering why 'ignore their own welfare to help others' is not included in the model when explain the question?

Besides, if it is in the model, where can I put it? Can I understand 'sometimes' as 'some' then use double arrow like:

IG ←sometimes→ MC→E

therefore, C→IG

Admin note: edited title

Hey guys, I just finished the LR section of the core curriculum which has always been my weakest. I took a slow approach and revisited lessons multiple times to make sure I'm actually absorbing everything and not on auto-pilot. I'm starting the LG section and I'm thinking that I should do one section of LR a week and BR it while going through the rest of the curriculum. Would you guys reccommend I do this timed, untimed, or a mix?

My question is how to translate: the only obligation is to act in the best interests of their own side. Does obligation here act as a necessity indicator? So Does this mean that if something is in the best interest of either party the party is required to act on it? or that if there is an obligation for either party the party must act in their own best interest?

Admin note: edited title

I am currently in the phase of doing timed logical reasoning drills! Today, was my second day and my results were horrible. I feel like I have grasped the concept of all the logical reasoning question types, BUT, when I put a time to it, I feel like I have lost brain cells..... My goal is to get at least the first 10 questions in under 10 minutes or possibly start on the harder questions first.... Some encouragement and explanation please

Problem: PT 2 - S2 - #13

To simplify,

If A then, either B or C. And we were given No C. What Must Be True?

I am a bit confused... Any helps will be very much appreciated! Thank you in advance!!!!! : )

Hey everyone, I’ll take all the perspectives I can get on this. I am having trouble differentiating the type of game board set-up according to the stimulus.

I have finished the CC, and getting ready to begin foolproofing. I just keep getting confused and I know the set-up is the foundation so it’s really important to get it right.

Is there any ‘standard’ way to go about setting up the board? I mean, any ‘standard’ way to tell what type of game it is from reading the stimulus??

I just want to confirm that when you do the "negation" technique for NA answer choices, you take the common sense version of negation (as in pretty much just say the opposite of what the statement says). I've noticed that, even with ACs which have conditional logic, JY will negate by the common-sense negation, rather than how we learned to negate "all" statements to "some..not" statements.

i.e. I will go to the store

Negation: I will NOT go to the store.

If I go to the store, I will buy eggs.

Negation: If I go to the store, I will NOT buy eggs.

PT example:

PT.33.3.16

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/stewards-of-cultural-heritage-na-question/

JY negates the conditional statement in B.) by saying private support will become necessary. Rather than saying private support will sometimes not be unnecessary

I apologize if this is going to sound elementary.

I'm struggling with the following sections: Validity and MBT, Some and Most Relationships, and Invalid Argument forms.

Should I be making review-sheets for these sections?

Thanks.

Chuggin' Maple Syrup.

Hello All,

I'm planning on taking the june 2018 lsat and applying to a few Canadian law schools ( I'm not looking for the highest ranking one, any one will do ). I took a PT before 7sage- scored in the 130s/140 range. After taking the course I thought I would see a vast increase on my second PT. Not the case. Wondering if I didn't absorb the material well- or that I need to take more PT's. I understand the concepts, but having issues memorising all the methods/indicators ect. My gpa was high from undergrad 3.7 + .. but I'm concerned that a low lsat score will keep me from getting into law school even with a high gpa and good app. I'm aiming for the university of windsor.

QUESTIONS....

1- did anyone see a similar pattern ? Is it just a matter of taking more PT ?

2- should I prep for the june lsat and have applications for the schools or , should I not even bother unless I get a decent lsat score. the school I'm applying to avg score is 155.

3-Noticed the first choice I circled was right - second one was wrong- for majority of the questions. Clearly I am second guessing myself. Should I just do the questions faster ? or is a better method needed ?

Thank you in advance.

Can anyone help me with this negation?

The sentence is: “The highest point of any volcanic ash cloud will eventually exceed an altitude of 5 km”

I negated it like this: “The highest point of any volcanic ash cloud will not eventually exceed an altitude of 5km”

I ran into trouble with this question bc I negated the answer choice wrong and it should have been negated as: “It is not the case that the highest point of any volcanic ash loud will eventually exceed an altitude of 5km”

I am having trouble seeing how these two negated sentences differ. Will using the word “not” get me into trouble? I reviewed the negation lesson and “not” was a word used to negate. I thought the meaning of negation (and from what I got from the lesson) was to say the logical opposite of something. But now I am wondering if the logical opposite means the thing you're negating can sometimes happen?

My sentence is saying that no volcanic ash cloud will exceed 5km. But the recommended negated sentence seems to mean that some volcanic ash clouds will exceed and some volcanic ash clouds won’t exceed 5km. Maybe I put the word “not” in the wrong place. If my negated sentence read “The highest point of not any volcanic ash cloud will eventually exceed an altitude of 5km” would that be right? Why?

This is from PT 83, S1, Q17.

Thanks in advance, sorry if this is super confusing but I am right there with you haha

Good evening 7SAGE family,

I have been studying for the LSAT for around six months. Although I've finished all CC for reading comprehension I continue to struggle in this area. My gains have been great in LG and LR, but I have only improved minimally in RC. My scores range from 155-158 with a raw score of 16-20 on RC. This has come to me as no surprise as RC is the hardest to improve, but it's still discouraging to do so poorly. Even a small gain in the raw score of reading comprehension would be huge. I am scheduled to take the June LSAT. What advice can you give to help me with this reading stagnation?

Thank you in advance

I just started the LG portion of the CC yesterday. I am brand new to logic games. As I am advancing through the CC, should I be fool proofing the games in the CC or should I wait to fool proof these games until after I'm done with the CC?

Hello,

I was recently reviewing PT2.S2.Q2. One of the answer says "The author appeals to conscience rather than reason."

Could you give me an example when the author appeals to conscience?

Can anyone giveme a hand with this question?

PREMISE:

Studies suggest that no matter what type of short term therapy one receives one will have a similar amount of improvement

CONCLUSION:

Therefore, it must be that all these therapies share a common factor that is responsible for this improvement

To me the argument sucks but i cant pinpoint the exact problem.

Thanks

Admin note: edited title for formatting

I just spent more than an hour studying and trying to understand the passage about riddled basins. I think i got it but what was LSAC thinking when they allowed this to be published. It is such an intricate passage and the questions ask for an actual understanding of what riddled basins are, not just testing our ability to understand reasoning structure

Hi everyone,

I've started fool proofing the logic games. But I'm curious to know: how many games do you tend to FP at a time? Obviously, I can only drill a game a few times a day to not just straight up memorize it.

What are your approaches? Do you go through only 5 games at a time before moving on to a new batch? Or 10 games? More? Do you visit the old games after you've fool proofed them? I'm struggling to find a good way to rotate through without worrying that I'm taking on either too many or not enough at time. (I have the LG bundle)

What was your method and what do you suggest? Your advice is greatly appreciated!

Thanks,

J

Why is the answer C instead of E?

According to my game board set up (and JY's set up) both C and E would work just fine because W gets to trade off with V, and that makes both HW and YW possible.

Can anyone please shed some light on this question for me? I am just super confused with it now.

Here's the link to the video: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-19-section-1-game-3/

Thanks!

Admin note: edited title for formatting.

I can't seem to find the document that has the list of the logic words such as: only if as Group 2 introducing N.C.

Does anyone know where I can find it?

Hello!

Quick question - when you are fool proofing and make a silly mistake by reading a question incorrectly that you then fix in blind review, do you take the time to add that to your "must full proof" list? Or, do you just move on?

Further, do you look at each game individually and try to get it under the time restrictions 7Sage suggests, or do you calculate your overall timing on a section and see what time you came in at and go from there?

Thanks!

Hello Sages,

I need your advice in logic games. For solving miscellaneous games, what should be the ideal approach? Since those games don't fall into a specified category , I don't know what the starting point should be . While practicing such games , should i spend as much time as possible (may be like 2-3 hrs) to first crack the game on my own instead of trying for 20 mins and then move on to watching the solution.My approach to solve a foreign setup should be able improve on its own as there is no specified way to deal with such games so I am trying in all possible ways to improve that . I am not sure if that is a good way to deal with foreign games. Am i trying the misc games the right way?Thanks.

Hi everyone,

Been a solid month since I posted. After I wrote in February, I took a mental break from everything LSAT related. I got my score back on March 7 and scored 6/7 points lower than my diagnostic (went from solid PTing at 159/160 to a 153 on test day). Needless to say I was pretty upset but I kind of saw it coming. I completely choked on logic games but found LR/RC to be less difficult, which I think shows in my score. I definitely guessed upward of 20 questions in LG (i.e. blindly guessed) and the other questions I didn't guess, I likely got wrong anyway. I knew I was choking on LG in the weeks leading up to the LSAT too. I was just aiming for a 160.

I'm just in general pretty bummed out. I feel like my personal statements were some of the best writing I had done. My reference letters were really strong and relevant (as I had just graduated university when I submitted my apps). I also had very strong leadership experiences and was an exceptionally involved student. I know some may say I still have hope but my top choices have historically never really accepted people with an LSAT score this low.

Now, I feel like if I retake the LSAT and apply for next cycle, my app will be significantly less competitive. I quit my job and studied for the LSAT for ~6 months, which means I've been unemployed and doing nothing but studying since September. Come applications for 2019, my application will have gone from stellar undergraduate student & involved leader to unemployed person in a quarter-life crisis lol. I've been applying for jobs but so far nothing significant has come up.

Hopefully I can muster up the strength to try again and hopefully something that I feel proud to put on my resume will come up. Blah. Just needed to vent a little.

Congratulations to everyone who received the score they were hoping for and/or has gotten into their dream schools. You guys have been super helpful along this journey so far!!

I know the CC is 300 hours of curriculum, and I'm not confident that I'll finish all of it in that time (mind you, my June test is later than yours! Beauty of international living, with the only downside that I have to go to a different country to take the dang test) with enough time to PT and BR. I'm working full time and sneaking in as much studying as I can.

My weakest area right now is LG, with some struggles around LR. My RC is pretty good (nearly perfect, just some sloppy mistakes from me thinking I'm hot stuff for finishing fast). My CD was 162, and the PT I took a week into studying was also a 162 (with a BR of 169, ran out of time on a whole game in LG! ack!). Haven't taken a PT since (they're being shipped to me now from the US), but I've read almost all of the LG Bible and I'm consistently getting -0 on games now when I do the ones in the Bible untimed but I'm still very slow with them. My goal is to be hitting 173+ by June 24th, and I feel like a 10 pt increase when most of those points are in LG isn't too unreasonable?

Do I need the CC in order to get myself to a good spot by end of June? Or should I keep rereading the LG bible, doing drills, doing PTs and BRs, watching the 7Sage videos, waiting for the LR Bible to come in the mail, and hoping really hard? I'm worried about the time that I would throw into the CC, and how that trades off with the time that I ought to be spending doing PTs and BR

Also I don't have consistent internet because I live in rural SE Asia, so I'm not certain how accessible the 7Sage package will be for me?

Hi - I wasn't sure under which category this question would fit so I chose LR. I am drilling diff types of LR questions from the Question Bank. Is there a way to get analytics for these questions? I only see analytics if we take a full PT.

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/tv-talk-shows-disagree-question/?ss_completed_lesson=1717

This is a question that I am dealing.

However, since there are different points with JY I wanted to ask others whether I can solve as below:

I eliminated b) since "contributing to the moral decline" does not guarantee real decrease.

I eliminated d) due to "by inviting guest". Moralist did say "TV shows by being shown the least moral people in our society, contributing to the moral decline in our society." However, we cannot say whether it is hosts or guests or any others.

I understand why other answers are all wrong. However, I cannot understand why d) is correct.

I believe this stimulus want me to assume "people shown in the TV shows with the least moral ppl" is guest.

Also, I don't know to what extent I have to assume when I am solving questions.

Need help : (

Can someone please help me with this question. I've naarrowed it down to A and E. I understand why E is the correct answer but cant figure out why A is wrong

/control --- /morally responsible for it--- /responsible for any consequences

Even though its hard to determine if adults have control, everyone sometimes acts in ways that’s a consequence of treatment received as an infant and infants cant control.

Why cant I conclude A from this?