Hello,

Can someone help explain to me why A is correct and not E? From my perspective, the passage never says that certain qualities (those of men) are detrimental, just that they can no longer be the society's primary qualities and that women need to have an equal role in society from here on out. That perspective lead me to answer E, since if women are inevitably going to become more and more essential in society, than those qualities that they possess will be too.

Here is my dilemma...

I have been studying for the LSAT for about 3 months now. I do really well on RC so the majority of my study time is focused on other areas. I have spent significantly more time on LR and very little time, comparatively, on LG, yet when I take timed sections I score virtually identical in points on all three sections?

Has this happened to anyone else, and what am I missing here?

I am taking the exam this Saturday and I am feeling a bit anxious. What are some do's and don'ts the week leading to the exam? How would you recommend studying and how much to study? I am a slow starter (I need to warm up before a test) so I feel like I need to keep doing drills to keep my pace. However, I don't want to overwork myself. Any advice/suggestions is greatly appreciated!

Hello,

Could someone explain to me why B is right over A? I chose B, but I still don't understand why it's right compared to A.

-"Which one of the following, if established, could most logically serve as the principle appealed to in the argument countering the critics’ claim?" (by PT 9-4-11)

Does anyone know if this stem is indicating an asssumption question or a principle question?

Thank you !!

Hi everyone,

So I was working on an RC passage today and after reading it once, I got that frustrating feeling like I needed to read the whole thing again. Before I did though, I thought to myself "Why do I spend time underlining and things that may or may not be important when I get to the questions?". When I do get to the questions, I usually end up going back to the passage anyway because it isn't until after I read the questions that I truly know what the test writer wants from me. So would it be better just to read the questions first? With RC you have to be able to cut through superfluous info, but a lot of time I am unable to distinguish between necessary and unnecessary info until I read the questions and know what I am supposed to be looking for.

Hey guys,

I have improved drastically on LR! And honestly, it feels so good! Thank you to 7SAGE and @akistotle who has helped me tremendously!

Nonetheless, I took PT 78 yesterday and scored 9/25 on the first LR section and 22/26 on the second one.

I honestly don't understand how this could have happened.

22/26 has been my best LR section yet, I usually score around 18/19. BUT A 9? I have not scored that low on a LR section since my diagnostic to be honest.

Is this just an outlier? The section felt hard like any other LR section to me but even after doing BR and scoring it... I scored fairly low.

Help please... freaking out right now since the LSAT is only days away.

Hey!

Can someone help me out with this (Question 1: Quiz on Drawing Valid Conclusions with Intersection Statements 3 w/Answers)

W → /R

W −m→ T

Y → /T

/W → Q

How come there is no relationship between /Q & /Y and between T & /Q? Whats the reasoning? I think it has something to do with the most statement but I would appreciate if someone took the time to explain it.

(Question 2: Quiz on Drawing Valid Conclusions with Intersection Statements 3 w/Answers)

/B → /D

F ←s→ D

/O → /F

I → F

I thought there would be a SOME relationship between D and I - I don't understand why there isn't.

Thank you in advance for taking the time to read my post.

When a question offers no additional premises, is the question referring to the prior question/game board?

https://twitter.com/matthew_j_kahn/status/959646383119708160?ref_src=twcamp%5Eshare%7Ctwsrc%5Eios%7Ctwgr%5Enet.whatsapp.WhatsApp.ShareExtension%7Ctwcon%5E7100%7Ctwterm%5E0

Has anyone seen this? haha!

Hey guys, since I didn't do a BR call for PT83, I want to open the forums up to solicit questions from PT83, preferably from LR.

If you have a question about PT83 please make a new thread with a title conforming to:

PT83.S#.Q# - first several words from the stimulus

Do not ask the question here in this thread. Make a new thread.

Try to explain your thought process in your original post. I'll try to answer / explain.

Hello,

Why is E wrong?

Is E wrong because it is an assumption that plants and animals "will" move to inhabit areas that are currently used for "agriculture"

I am wondering if there are any methods and/or ideas you use to configure a game board within the analytical reasoning section. Thank you in advance.

Could anyone confirm that it will not show up on your record even if you withdraw more than once? I withdrew from the September LSAT, and am registered for the February LSAT, but not scoring where I need to be.

Thanks!

I really struggle with reading comprehension, and have been thinking of ways to improve. I have a few months before I write the LSAT and was wondering what some of you would recommend to get better.

I was thinking about subscribing to the economist and reading random articles that I find hard on a daily basis and using the 7sage reading comprehension method to really understand those articles. But I'd really like to hear from some of you who are killing the reading comp section. What works??

Hi everyone!

I've been studying with 7Sage since October while working full-time, going through the Core Curriculum lessons after work (spending about 3-4 hours per day). I started writing timed PTs in mid-December, and I've completed about 20 of them to date. My average score is 157, with my highest being 159. My target is 160, but of course I would love to be within the mid-160s.

After reading the discussion threads during the December exam timeframe and reading the threads now, there seems to be a general consensus that one should postpone if they're not scoring near their desired range. Does anyone have any advice for those of us that might be very close or just barely within their target?

My apologies if this has been touched on previously...

Many thanks!

Could someone be so kind to explain why AC B is correct? I went with E, quite confidently at that. Any insight is greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance!

-H

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-73-section-2-question-19/

Would anyone advise against taking 3 tests within the week? If so, what alternative practice would you recommend during my final days of studying?

Hi fellow Sagers,

I'm currently in the final stretch preparing for the February LSAT. I have a quick question re: blind review. I've been doing it for the past 4 weeks, and rarely see an improvement (or significant increase) on my BR results. Sometimes it's actually lower! I feel like I almost look to find a way to pick an alternate answer, if I've tagged a Q for BR. Like it's triggering a part of my brain to second guess my original reasoning. Sometimes my BR is one or two points above or below my timed conditioned PT. For example, just PT-ed #71. Actual score: 165. BR: 166. Am I an outlier? Is this normal? Seems like everyone else scores way higher on their BR. To be clear, I'd be more than happy with anything in the 160s as these scores will fall in and above the medians for my schools of choice (Canada), so I'm not especially bothered by the scores nor am I aiming for the 170s (of course, a score up there would be a pleasant surprise, but I don't think it's realistic). Any feedback on this would be most welcomed.

Can someone please explain this flaw? Why would it matter if the election outcome was different if the majority party had not supported the bill?

There are some situations where JY takes a different approach to a rule for no ostensible reason other than the fact that the ordinary approach would result in some difficulty that is not clear except based on hindsight. But this does not help someone facing the game for the first time!

The primary example of this is how we approach an ordering rule that has "or but not both." The usual way appears to be to split the game based on that rule, because it creates a "binary cut." This makes a lot of sense and is helpful. JY recommends this approach in PT83 Game 2, PT52 game 4, PT51 Game 2, and I might be missing some others. He occasionally solves without the split but also endorses the split and goes over it in a different video - PT78 Game 3. But what is troubling for me is that there doesn't seem to be an explanation of why one would approach this type of rule without a split rather than with the split. Obviously it's good to be able to do it both ways, but how does one know when one approach would be more effective than the other?

This problem reveals itself in PT61 Game 2, where JY does NOT do a split and does not talk about why he didn't do the split, even when one would quite naturally think about doing the split if one has been following the other videos. It turns out that the split, if done, is slightly messy and is not as easy to do as it normally is -- several students in the comments to the video note that the game was a lot harder with the split. But when asked why he didn't do the split, JY comments "Yeah, the P messes things up… It was a while ago, but I think that was why I didn’t link them up." This is definitely a good reason why the split doesn't end up being too effective, but it seems to be something that is only evident AFTER trying to split. We don't get to see the actual process of trying to do the split, seeing that it's not good, and then approaching the game without the split. Instead, it seems as if one should naturally know not to do the split. That seems like a hindsight based strategy rather than one made actionable for a student! I don't see any reason up front why we would not at least explore the split first.

Another example is the different approaches in PT73 Game 1 and PT53 Game 2. In PT73 we have 2 "or but not both" rules that create 4 possibilities. JY says it's a no brainer to sketch out those possibilities. Yet in PT53 Game 2, JY does NOT do the split and in fact mentions that he tried to the split but it wasn't helpful, so is showing how to do it without the split. But there doesn't seem to be any clear reason why a student approaching PT53 the first time after having reviewed the explanation for PT73 and similar games would proceed by not doing the split! PT53 presents 4 possibilities in almost the exact same way as PT73. It's like JY's showing the best way to do the game based on hindsight rather than showing a consistent approach that student could take to know up front which way is the best way to do the particular game!

Any thoughts?

Hi all, I'm not through the CC yet (obviously). When learning logical indicators, I'm trying to reason my way through them, because I know I will forget rote memorization. I understand why all the translation rules apply so far, except for "until."

If you tell me to "add pennies to the jar until Bob tells you to stop," my brain translates that as "when/if Bob tells you to stop, stop adding pennies to the jar." I cannot see how this is logically wrong. Bob telling me to stop is sufficient for me to stop. And yet according to the translation rules, the correct translation is the converse--"if Bob doesn't tell you to stop, add pennies to the jar." Which of course also sounds true. Any help here?

And if there's a better place to post this, let me know. Wasn't sure about using this category.

Does anyone have any advice about one last PT? I'm thinking of taking one or two more before the February 10 LSAT. However, part of me is afraid that I'll score badly on my last PT---despite doing fairly well on my others---and that it'll totally demoralize or shake my up for the real thing. At the same time, I know that if I score well, it'll send me into the Feb LSAT feeling confident and in the right mindset.

Anyone else had this problem/fear before their test? Please advise!

(Also, much thanks to this community---despite my worries, I feel WAY more confident than I would be otherwise a week out because of all of you!)

Hi all,

I'm scheduled to take the Feb 10 test and my score is not near where I want it to be. I am tempted to take the Feb test anyway just so I can see what it's like to take an official test and then retake it in June if I'm not satisfied with my score. Would it be counterproductive to take the exam in Feb knowing I won't do as well I want to or would it be best to postpone and take the exam in June instead?

By the way, I have been studying for a little over two months by using another company's prep books and I just recently signed up for 7Sage. I can tell 7Sage is far more superior and I wish I signed up sooner.

Apologies if someone has asked this already.

Thanks in advance!

PT2.S2.Q11 LSAT 2 PREPTEST 2 Question 11 section 2

I don't get how this answer is "B."

The question is asking "Which following statements are consistent with biologist's claim, but not with politician's."

biologist claims: deforestation --> NO Koala

Politician claims: If save Koala --> stop deforestation (did I get that translation right?)

How is "B" consistent with Biologist's claim? I see how it's not consistent with politician's claim, which is part of the answer.

Is it that the Koala could still get extinct for another reason. If that's so, how do I get in the mind set to infer an answer like that?