So my April LSAT score was a bust, so going to gear up to take it in June. Any recommendations for a 6 week study sprint? My best section is Logic Games so truly going to be my last time to take the test with the best conditions possible. I studied a couple hours 6 days a week from February - April (with tutoring) and was pretty consistently scoring above what I got on the April test. Think I got tripped up just through general test-day anxiety (and what I thought was a super difficult RC section). Should I just try to take as many PTs as possible the next 6 weeks? Should I do more drills? Go back to some of the basics? Little lost here.

Truly so frustrated by my April score and June will be unfortunately my 4th time taking the test, so any words of wisdom or success stories to make me feel some hope would be lovely.

Why is E the correct answer? I said C

Hi I was curious if using indicator words was the best way to identify these or if there was another general way?

Is memorizing the words the only way to achieve this or is there a more general approach that can be taken?

Hello,

I'm trying to understand why answer choice (a) for this question is incorrect.

I chose answer choice A and am struggling to understand why it's wrong. I understand why D is correct, but I can't get comfortable with ruling out A, and I went back and forth between the two for a while before deciding on A. The tutor in this video said that the issue lies with "all relevant respects", saying that we have no relevant connections to an anteater. However, I would think that we are talking in the frame of mammals - "all species that are similar in all relevant respects" = mammals, all of which, except for the anteater, dream. So, facts about one species of animal (spiny anteater, the specific facts being about their brain size) provide confirmation for hypotheses about all species that are similar in all relevant respects (mammals, the hypothesis being the parasitic connection hypothesis) to the particular species in question (again, spiny anteater). Does anyone have any additional thoughts on why this is wrong / other methods of ruling it out?

[Admin note: Format for posting questions about specific Logical Reasoning (LR) questions:

"PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of question"; Do not post LSAT questions, any copyrighted content, or links to content that infringe on copyright.]

Feeling discouraged and frustrated, but I know this is a hard test and meant to play with you. My biggest area of struggle was always LR (and still is). I'm still pretty new here, and since starting 7sage I thought I was finally starting to grasp the concepts and tricks to handle LR questions. I took my first preptest to see how I'd do, and got a 139. I know I am able to do much better, but I dont know what I'm doing wrong, if im second guessing myself or simply overthinking each question. Any tips on how to handle LR? Anyone else deal with the same issue? Will I be able to master LR by the time my August LSAT comes around?

Study buddy and need help with logic games. Can anyone meet?

the argument says that Neanderthals probably preserved their meats by smoking it, citing that burnt lichen and grass were found in many of their fireplaces, and that a fire made of these materials produces a lot of smoke, but not as much heat or light as a wood fire.

the correct answer is B. When I read the explanation, it says that B is correct because it suggests that Neanderthals used lichen and grass out of necessity rather than specifically for smoking meat. The explanation also says that the point of this argument is that Neanderthals used lichen and grass only to smoke meats.

But that is NOT how this argument is written to me. To me, the argument says that the only way Neanderthals preserved their meats was by smoking it, citing burnt lichen and grass in fireplaces, that burnt lichen and grass fire produce a lot of smoke as evidence. So I chose A, which suggests that they also used heat, which is ruled out in the last sentence in the argument.

I do not understand, for the life of me, how the main idea of this argument is that Neanderthals used lichen and grass primarily to smoke their meat, and not that smoking their meat was the only way they preserved it!

Is it me????? Every time I think I make headway on these questions, I get them wrong and it's so discouraging.

Admin Note: Edited title. For LR questions, please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."

So I was watching the explanation on 7sage and the person explaining the game said that 1-5 was one game board and 6-10 was another, but idk how they knew to split. someone please advise.

I picked C initially but I am confused as to why and how A is the correct answer and how that information could be deduced?

Admin Note: Edited Title. Please use the format "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of question"

So, I can identify the conclusion and the support for the argument, but I'm having a hard time understanding the relationship between them. For some of the questions I can intuit the answer, even if the connection isn't clear, but for other questions, namely the ones that have a lot of background information, or more than one premise, or has two arguments, for example

city official: ....

police chief: ....

Once I identify the argument, I get stuck trying to make sense of what I'm looking at, and then I fail to understand the answer choices well enough to eliminate the wrong ones or recognize the right one. What usually happens is I get down to two answers, either the right one and the wrong one, or two wrong ones. For the latter, I cross out the right answer thinking it's wrong, and for the former, I choose the wrong answer even though the right one looks right but I don't understand why it's right.

I do go in and look at why I was wrong, and it usually makes sense, but it's like it's not sticking, and it's really frustrating to keep making the same mistake. For very question I get wrong on an LR section, at least one of them is from the assumption family.

I'm using Khan Academy to do drills, and for strengthen/weaken questions, I can't get less than 2 wrong, or even get the all right at the advanced level.

I really want to master this test. I'm aiming for a 165 at least, 170 at most, but I can't defeat these harder questions.

Can someone please help?

Hi everyone,

I am running low on untouched, high-numbered PTs, so I was wondering if I could use the new PTs without LG to get some practice in for the June LSAT? Or would that be frowned upon? I just want to make sure it's a sensible thing to do because I want to practice LR and RC more often than I want to practice LG anyway.

So, I understand that the argument is saying that because incidences of the flu were lower during the 6 months of the public health campaign, that means that the campaign was effective.

I chose C - there were fewer large public gatherings than usual during the 6-month period.

But the explanation says that C is wrong because it doesn't address the effectiveness of the campaign, that A is correct because it suggests widespread compliance with the campaign's recommendations of handwashing.

But this doesn't make any sense to me because handwashing isn't the only recommendation of the campaign. Avoiding public places when experiencing flu symptoms is also a recommendation. And if there were fewer large gatherings during the 6 month period of the campaign, then wouldn't that indicate to the effectiveness of it?

The explanation argues that A speaks to the effectiveness of the campaign more than C does because food born illness rates were also low, but what if people were not necessarily washing their hands as a result of the public campaign? Maybe they work in restaurants, where handwashing is necessary. Maybe they work in schools where handwashing vital. And the argument says that the campaign recommended hand washing specifically for reducing the transmission of the flu, what if people were washing their hands to not get sick from food borne illnesses, and the decrease in the rate of the flu was just a by product, which would make it seem like the campaign worked, but it didn't necessarily?

If the public health campaign's purpose was to limit the spread of influenza, and part of the recommendation was to stay away from public places when experiencing symptoms, and during the time of the campaign, there weren't as many large public gatherings, and the rate of the flu decreased...

I mean, I know that C doesn't necessarily mean people heeded the campaign, but neither does A. So how is A more correct than C?

I'm livid because this frustrating! lol

Also, I crossed out A because the argument didn't say anything about food borne illnesses. I also got other questions wrong for doing the same thing... crossing out the right answer because it introduces something new. Maybe that's where I'm going wrong?

[SIGHS]

Someone stick a fork in me, please..

First of all, I'm very thankful this is my problem. It certainly was not a few months ago. I have been getting so close to perfect on LG sections each time I take, but I seem to get nervous and miss an inference every blue moon, leading to scores anywhere from -1/-3. How do I keep calm and make sure I'm not making stupid mistakes for June?

If i'm taking it in june should i use version1 or 2

Hey everyone! So I am consistently getting -2 or -3 for LR and LG, but RC is constantly -5 to -8... My scores are usually 165-167, but I know I could be in the 170's (my goal) if I fixed RC. Please give me any and every bit of advice you have. I have a lot of trouble focusing from time to time (think I might have undiagnosed ADHD... runs in my family and I have symptoms, but idk if it's genetic?) and I am usually good at reading but for some reason I keep running out of time and really struggling on the questions. TYIA :)

going through core curriculum rn for LR. Should I consistently drill at hard?

Will learning Logic Games help me understand logic better and do better on LR and RC?

Is anybody else way over time on there "set up target time" and way ahead on the "questions target time"? I feel like I'm alway about 3 minutes behind on the setup and 3-4 mins ahead on questions. Any advice to speed up my set up? I don't feel like I'm making an unreasonable amount of deductions. I feel like sometimes it just takes me a second to understand the game.

So I realize why it's C (reason for M's comeback "even students in technical majors are requred..."), but initially chose B. Can we rule B out because we are unsure of Ramona's stance on B?

Journalists often claim that their investigation of the private lives of political leaders is an effort to improve society by forcing the powerful to conform to the same standards of conduct as the less powerful. In reality, however, the tactic is detrimental to society. It makes public figures more concerned with mere appearances, and makes everyone else cynical about the character of their leaders.

The claim that journalistic investigation of the private lives of political leaders is an effort to improve society plays which one of the following roles in the argument?

I chose (A) It is a claim that the argument attempts to refute. However, the answer was (B) It mentions a justification that is sometimes offered for a practice that, the argument concludes, has undesirable consequences.

I think I understand why (A) is not the correct answer, but I am not entirely sure why. To my understanding, the paragraph can be split into 2 parts: one side states a claim that justifies investigating the private lives of political leaders, and the

other states the bad consequences. The second part does not outright refute what the Journalists are saying, so (A) cannot be the right answer.

Does my train of thought makes sense? And does anyone have any tricks/guidance on how to avoid making the same mistake in the future? All help is appreciated.

Admin Note: Edited title. For LR questions, please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."

I can't distinguish between A and E- I originally chose A and then overthought it in BR and chose E. #help

Admin Note: Edited title. For RC questions, please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# (P#) - brief description of stimulus."

I am consistently not finishing the LG section when I take timed PT. I've been having 6-7 questions I do not get to before time runs out. However, when I BR I get a -0 on LG. Should I continue studying LG with the goal of increasing my speed to take the June exam? Or, do I just give up on LG and focus my attention on RC and LR and wait for the August Exam?

Hey 7Sagers,

Here's the official April 2024 LSAT Discussion Thread.

REMINDER: Under your Candidate Agreement, you may not discuss the details of any specific LSAT questions at any time. For the April 2024 LSAT, general discussion of what sections you had, or how difficult you found a given section, or speculation about which sections were scored or unscored, is prohibited until after 9pm ET, Tuesday, April 16th.

Posts that violate these rules will be taken down and may result in disciplinary action from LSAC. Let’s work together to ensure the test is fair to everyone, and not share information before everyone has taken the test.

Some examples of typical comments:

✅ The following comments are okay 🙆‍♀️

❌ The following comments are over the line 🙅‍♂️

Good luck to everyone taking the April 2024 LSAT!

**Please keep all discussions of the April 2024 LSAT here!**(/red)

Hello everyone,

The Lsac website does not state whether or not tests in the 2024-2025 test year will be available in the remote format. Does anyone know if we will be able to take them at our home?

Thanks!

Can someone please explain these correct answers? I am having issues :(