Hey Everyone,

With 15 days until the next LSAT -14 days of review time left - I would like to hear the opinion of others on how to spend the next 14 days. Would it be best to write PT's for the next two weeks, practicing everything under gametime conditions. Or, would it be better to drill types of games, and questions, while doing timed practice sections for the next weeks; keeping the mind sharp for the big day.

What are your thoughts on how to approach the next 14 days?

Cheers,

When I read the Necessary assumption answer choices, I can only understand when the answer is wrong by negating it. How I understand why the answer is wrong without the negation, because, on the actual test I can't negate as it will take way to much time. Please if you have any suggestions, let me know :).

When is it valid to add percentages of two different sets. I know that sometimes the two sets could be overlapping and their percentages can't be added together, but are there times when you could validly add them? For example, if we said 30% of dogs are brown and 40% of cats are brown, could we say that 70% of cats and dogs are brown?

I know JY advises against moving onto the ACs without coming up with a prephase for flaw questions, but there are unfortunately usually 2-3 flaw questions on PTs that I just can't seem to see the flaw, even after skipping and coming back to it. And as some of you can guess, I get trapped by attractive sounding answers because I'm wading in muddy waters. How have you all overcome this? Do you have a methodical way of approaching flaw questions? (I try to boil down the MP and the MC and see the gap each time.)

Is drilling flaw questions the best way to fundamentally fix this problem? I'm thinking maybe I just haven't been exposed to enough flaw qs to see the patterns.

Thanks :)

Hi all!

I'm hoping that someone can help me out here. I started studying for the LSAT around Christmas, at when I took my diagnostic and a few subsequent LR sections/PTs, I was going -1/0 pretty consistently on LR sections. However, in the past two weeks or so, I've been doing a bit worse, ranging from -2 to -4, with a lot of -3.

Is it possible I've gotten worse? That I'm burning out? Any thoughts would be appreciated, especially if you've found that you've gotten worse on a section since studying!

Hi all,

What’s the most efficient way to study for the next two weeks? Should I be doing one prep test per day at this point?

I work part time, so I have the mornings free and also the evenings.

Fyi I have been spending most of my time doing BR and haven’t done a lot of prep tests. I’m still struggling with timing for logic games so my strategy is to just focus on three out of four games.

Edit: I have already taken at least 10 preptests in the past two months

Hi Group, I’m very frustrated because I cannot figure out if S and Y, W and Y, and V and Z are not both or biconditionals for Prep Test 26, Section 1, Game 3. I believe JY said it both ways on two different videos for the same game. Can someone help me? I just spent 1/2 hour reading through related discussions and my understanding is now at zero.

Also, Finding the correct test for this grouping game problem set 1 was unbelievably difficult. Honestly, sometimes it’s like pulling teeth just to get the basic stuff that you paid for.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-26-section-1-game-3/

By which, I mean can a conclusion be divided between two complete sentences. Where in the sum of the two sentences create the fully fleshed out conclusion. If so, does the sentence have to have a comma or can it be “Sentence 1. +Sentence 2 = conclusion.”

Regards,

Dalton

Hi.

I got this question correct but I was debating between A and C.

I chose C at the end because Max was harmed without consent and Wesley benefit from the Max's result in the report.

I just wanted to make sure why A is incorrect.

I assume that A was incorrect because Sonia did not benefit from having harm to another person because at the end both children were kept afterschool. Am I correct?

I've just started the LG section of the CC and I can't even set up the board game correctly in some of the questions. When did you start seeing improvement?

Hi,

I didn't understand how A is worded.. can somebody translate this French into English. Thank u.

"This strategy lacks a counterproductive feature of the rejected alternative"

So the following is the order that I attempt again when I come back after I skip them during the 1st pass in an LR section:

Do you guys have any other suggestions?

Does this phrase introduce the sufficient or necessary condition? Ex. Tina will enter the pool, if and only if Mike enters.

T->M

or

M->T

Thanks!

PS, I'm thinking it is the latter of the two.

Hi,

Just to give some background: I have a high-160s score and plan on retaking in June. LR is my weakness. On my official test, I got -10 (combined) across the two sections. I have been retaking old tests, but am thinking about how best to reduce my misses in LR.

To those who have experience making this jump: should I do untimed sections of LR and really try to internalize the reasoning in each question OR do timed 35 minute sections with blind review (though I've seen these sections already)?

I'm torn because during my official test, I ran out of time to really digest certain questions so timing is an issue, but I also attribute my inability to complete a section to a general weakness in understanding the stimuli presented.

Any help is appreciated! Thanks in advance!

So I’ve been spending 3-4hrs BR’ing LGs using Pacifico’s method every night after my 8-5 job on weekdays and then 3-4 hours on Saturday and Sunday as well. I’ll work on one new game and then repeat a game from the day before and a game from the week before. I’ve only taken one day off. I’ve made it to LG 25 and i’ve improved a lot.

I’ve been fighting this flu for the past few days and it’s making me a lot slower at LGs. I’m struggling on games that were a breeze for me even on my first take. I’m still getting all the q’s right and not brute forcing my way thru it, I’m just a few min slower.

Would it be better to take a few days off and come back to it? or is it better to keep going and not stop practicing?

Should you skip and return after finishing the whole section (finish other games first) or should you return to it after completing other questions in THAT game?

This question is a “similar reasoning question”. It says “ the higher the altitude, the thinner the air. Since Mexico City’s altitude is higher than that of Panama City, the air must be thinner in Mexico City than in Panama City.” I have looked at the right answer but I am confused as to why one of the wrong answers (a) is incorrect. It says “as one gets older one gets wiser. Since Henrietta is older than her daughter, Henrietta must be wiser than her daughter”.

This to me is an attractive wrong answer. If it was posed as “the older you get, the wiser you are...” would that have made it right?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-35-section-4-question-23/

Anyone have any suggestions as to the best way of tracking foolproofing?

Just starting out, but want a system in place before I do. I don't want to realize half way through that I should have kept track of something I hadn't previously considered, so would greatly appreciate input or suggestions of indicators from anyone who has gone this path before me. If I make a spreadsheet, listing each game (i.e. "PT 36, Game 1"), then what should I record to measure progress, and to make sure no games slip through the cracks? Time? Number correct? Date completed? All of the above?

Thanks!

Hello,

I have two questions for you guys.

When we are fool proofing using Pacificos or JYs way, are we practicing "memorizing" the inferences and/or "making" inferences. The reason I am asking this is because it is extremely easy for me to remember the inferences from a game once I have watched the video explanation. I can knock the game out fairly quickly this way. However, if I focus on making an inference and going through the process of making the inference, it become a lot more time consuming. If anyone could clarify in regards to this is would be greatly appreciated.

I have noticed that some of the you here are writing out your answers when doing blind review for LG, explaining the inferences to gauge whether you fully understand the game or not. When it comes to writing out explanations, could some one please clarify their method as to how they go about writing out explanations?

Thanks and much appreciated!

Hi everyone I'm having trouble with this question. I think I sort of understand it but if someone can clarify any details Im missing I'd appreciate it.

Basically the citizen states he will do two things to ensure incumbents aren't re-elected. 1) campaign against all these incumbents 2) vote for the incumbent who represents his own neighborhood because she's the only one that knows what she is doing. He then goes on to argue that if everyone in Mooresville follows his example there will be a change in the councils membership.

the question stem then states "assuming that each citizen in Mooresville is allowed to vote only for a city council representative...."

so were proving what must be true for the council membership to change.

A) is true because the citizen in the stimulas is making the exception of voting for an incumbent in his neighborhood that he think will do a good job. But if everyone else from different neighborhoods does the same thing there stands a possibility that all the incumbents will be voted back in and do a bad job all over again in dealing with municipal finances so the voters in answer choice A shouldn't make the same exception that the citizen is making but instead the voters should vote for other representatives, which will substantially change the councils membership.

is this correct and is my reasoning of in any way...

Thanks

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-18-section-2-question-03/

Hello everyone, this post is inspired by the fact that I just got wrecked on both LR sections on a PT. While I normally score -4 or -5 I got a -7 and -8 this time. The infuriating part is that I because have finally improved my RC and LG to a consistently high level (-4 & -3 respectively on past PT) I decided to dedicate this past week to fortifying some weak areas in LR. Unfortunately, it seems like my efforts were counterproductive. I spent most of my time doing 4/5 star questions untimed to focus on the thought process. I am wondering whether this was counter productive - maybe it hurt my confidence? Other than BR what other techniques can I utilize to bring my score down below a -4 on LR?

Can anyone shed a little light on this one for me? I see now why the correct answer is correct but I chose C because I felt that it was blocking any alternate explanations for the prevented deaths. I thought that taking more trips and the total time in cars remaining constant would rule out saying deaths are being prevented because the kids are now in cars less than 8 yrs ago. Am I reaching here? The explanations I’ve read have said that the amount of time in cars is irrelevant. The only thing I’m seeing that sticks out now is “average total time”. Would that make a difference?

Hey all. 3 weeks till Feb LSAT. I’ve been doing some timed PT and I find myself consistently scoring -7 to -8 on both LR sections. I’m realizing my mistakes come from parallel reasoning and sufficient assumption questions. Any advice on how to approach both these sections and hopefully improve to 3-4 missed questions per LR section? Thanks

I am having trouble understanding why A is the right answer.

P: Ink from Bible by Gutenberg contains titanium. Ink of another bible from 15th Century contains titanium. Ink from other printing from 15th century does not contain titanium. (from the word "another" I am thinking that Gutenberg Bible was from 15th Century)

Conclusion: This finding supports (1) B3 bible was printed by Gutenberg, (2) We cannot doubt that the Vinland Map is not from 15th century because of the presence of titanium in the ink.

In arriving the first conclusion, the author is making an assumption that only Gutenberg used ink containing titanium in 15th century.

What I don't understand it that in arriving second conclusion, I don't see that the author is making an assumption that ink containing titanium was widely used (not restricted as the answer choice A states). I am thinking that it could be that those Vinland Maps were printed by Gutenberg. In that case, the second conclusion follows well. The second conclusion is based on the premise that ink containing titanium was used in 15th century by somebody. How can we say that the author is assuming that titanium ink was widely used (not restricted) from this conclusion? The premise is talking about one Vinland Map in question and we don't know how popular that map was during that time. It could be there were only few copies made by Gutenberg, then can't we conclude that presence of titanium in the ink of Vinland Map is no longer a reason to doubt of 15th century authenticity?

Thank you for any help you can give.

JY mentions by full proofing if you didn't do the question in the proper time, to go over it several more times. whats considered the proper time for each logic game? Do i give myself an extra minute or two if its a hard logic game?