I'm practically devoting the remaining days left to get in as many lessons under my belt as possible; 12 v 24/7 if need be. Wondering if I change my Feb test date to June whether or not law schools would even consider it for F18 class. Thoughts?

Hi all,

When I drill my weaker LR question types (untimed), I almost always go -0, and on BR I usually go -1/-2 per LR section. On a timed section, however, I usually score closer to -9 per section. Also, I feel strong for the first section of the test, but wear out as the test goes along. How do I improve endurance between PT's (I don't want to waste PT's)?

What drills should I do to improve speed and endurance for LR?

So I'm in the middle of fool-proofing. The first time I do a game, I will just use a stop watch and see how long it took me, while trying to work it as fast I can. I'm getting -0 or -1 on all the games. But my first go is often 10+ minutes. I'm a bit proud that I'm getting all these games, it's an awesome feeling, before I started the CC I was so weak at games... BUT now discouraged at taking 10 minutes. Some, I've taken 14. I'd say most are 9 to 10 mins, in looking at my chart, that I took from Pacifico's LG attack strategy. Is it reasonable to expect to get faster the more I keep FPing?

I went through JY's courses and have a question I just can't seem to solve by myself.

JY explained that sufficient assumption questions are something like:

Premise: A

Conclusion: B

Answer: A->B

But I keep thinking that this type of question could also be a necessary assumption question.

Obviously, A->B is necessary to get to the conclusion B.

So, my question is, are these "fill the gap" kind of questions both sufficient assumption and necessary assumption questions at the same time??

Hi,

Can someone briefly explain this whole weakening question please? TY

"Which one of the following, if true, most justifies the above application of the principle?" - Is this Principle question or PSA?

"Which one of the following would be most useful to know in order to evaluate the argument?" - Sufficient Assumption? PSA?

These two appear on the later LSAT's and always give me pause and I'm not sure how to attack them...

Title says it mostly.

I’ve [unfortunately] done all of the PTS in the 50-80s. Used the 30s & 40s for drills. Haven’t really touched PT 1-29. From what I’ve read, 1-29 are pretty useless as anything besides drilling, so it seems that all I have to work with is PT 83 - Dec. 2017 PT - which I got in the mail today!!! Unless someone can reassure me that taking PR 1-29 as full timed test will be beneficial? Please please please please please....]

So here’s my story & my questions.

My PR average for PR 70 - 82 was a 178. I sat in December & choked. A good score, but below not my PT average. I blanked out on RC. kinda froze on LR. skipped. guessed. anxiety got the best of me & I predicted I’d get between a 165 & 170. I got a 168.

Luckily I took the sabbath test, so the released PT 83 is brand new for me. However, I don’t know what to do to prep for my retake in February...

• since I had a good handle on it PTing up to December what do I do to stay fresh and afloat before 1) taking PT 83 & more importantly 2) sitting again in Feb? How do I even study before the PT or test. [Unfortunatley sabbath tests being unreleased I have no clue how exactly I did on individual sections.

• as I previously questioned - can I benfit from taking, & at this point should I even take, any exams between 1-29 as full length PTs?

• Should I just not take PT 83 since my average is solid? What if I do poorly and shake my confidence?

I can't recall if further more was one of our indicator words. I am getting confused, does furthermore introduced the main conclusion and follow the main premise?

A little over a week in 7sage I took a PT and improved by 3 points. I got a 157 a new personal best! With that said, I'm still having problems with the LR questions that ask something along the lines of the flaw in this argument best resembles... or the flaw in this argument is......these question types. Any pointers?

Hi @J.Y. Ping , I have come across a non-linear spacial game type . I need your suggestion on how to go about it. Since it is a different type of game so it must be having different way to interpret its rules . A sample of such a question is like this :

Admin edit: Removed full question. Please link to the PT instead of posting the stimulus as it is against our rules!

(Also please avoid thread titles in all caps, the admins are sensitive and don't like to be yelled at.)

Please guide me to tackle such misc questions and how to interpret the game board setup and interpret their rules.

Thanks and Regards,

I missed question 4. I actually couldn’t pick an answer because they all appeared to work as I moved my l–n block around for each answer choice. I remember learning that when you have to go backwards in the chain that means those items on the other leg of the chain have no relation. So as I looked at my chain the l–n block had no relation to H, so I am missing the inference that I was supposed to pick up that indicated that nothing could be lower than H or that H had the 9 spot on lock down.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-4-section-3-game-1/

Ok so this question gave me a world of trouble. I looked up the explanation given on Manhattan and I think I get it but I need confirmation.

My main problem is that the explanation given doesn't seem to use the contrapositive (which I attempted to use) but rather 2 separate worlds for each one.

"In this world, you are either rich or poor, and you are either honest or dishonest. All poor farmers are honest. Therefore, all rich farmers are dishonest."

Now taking away the farmers part, the explanation went on to list the premises as:

R-->/P If you are rich, then you are not poor

/R-->P If you are not rich, then you are poor.

H-->/D If you are honest, then you are not dishonest.

/H-->D If you are not honest, then you are dishonest.

These don't line up as contrapositives but rather separate worlds it seems. When used with the conclusion though, you can reach AC A as the right answer.

R-->/P

/P->/H

/H-->D

R-->D

So am I on the right track? You treat the premises as separate worlds?

Hi,

This might be a silly question but for D... It says "A scientific model that contains many elements is not a good theory"

And, on the premise, in order to be a good scientific theory your model needs to be simple enough to contain only a few elemnents...

From what I learned... Many is some ...

Is there difference between few and some?

When a rule says S is a higher number than N, is that S-N or N-S? Does higher mean lower?

My brain is in that weird place where I can feel myself over thinking..

So for necessary assumptions, the assumptions can be about the context, premise and conclusion? If the negation a statement attacks, say, the context of an argument, would this statement be a necessary assumption? Am I understanding this right??

PT19. S2. Q17

Hi everyone, I'm having trouble with this one. Here is how I diagrammed it.

premise1) devote to study natural process---- have leisure

premise 2) resources plentiful --- have leisure (------ note: i originally diagrammed premise 2 as the reverse of this statement but since it says "when" in premise 2 which introduces a sufficient assumption I changed it.

premise 3 + 4) early societies made complex discoveries - result of active study of natural process(/p)

I thought the answer was A) but its C. I thought it was A because when you combine premise 1 and 2 it creates a some statement between the two which I thought would be correct.

Can someone explain to me where I am going wrong.

Is there a difference between A --> (B-->C) vs A --> B or C

If so, what is the contrapositive of the A --> (B-->C)

Hey all!

Does anyone have any advice on which PTs are essential to cover before the February test? Obviously tricky ones like 79, 81... but any others? If you felt like you struggled in a certain aspect of the test, was there a PT that you thought was personally really helpful that you covered?

To everyone studying for the February test (like me) we can do it! Good luck to all!

It's supposed to help with understanding topics you're unfamiliar with and just a supplement to actual studying.

I have a tedious desk job and used to play netflix in the background but now I'm trying to do something to stimulate my brain a bit. I've been listening to Radio Lab.

Or audiobook recs!

So, I chose B at first and then changed to C for BR. Now I know why B and C both cannot be the correct answer for this question.

B talks about dominant class which we don't know anything about.

C talks about social class which its different from noble class in the premise.

The correct answer for this question was A...

(A) To say that feudalism by definition requires the existence of a nobility is to employ a definition that distorts history.

I understand the answer until "is to employ a definition that distorts history"... How does it distorts history..?

Can somebody explain why A is a correct answer?

Thank you!

Admin note: edited title

deleted

This is a pretty easy question IMO, but I have a question about why (E) is wrong and the interpretation of "or".

The author of the passage provided Nicaraguan pines as an example of a forest produced in part through controlled burning. The author does not think the pines were produced by natural fires. So the most straightforward explanation for why (E) is wrong is that the author would not agree that the Nicaraguan pines "could have been created by natural fires or controlled burning" because (s)he disagrees with natural fires as the cause.

But consider this: Let's say we know that A is true, and that B is not true. Given that information, can I logically conclude that "Either A is true or B is true"? I submit that the answer is yes. Because we know that A is true, it's a true statement to say that "A is true or B is true." For example, let's say I'm a senior in college. Someone asks me what year I am. I respond, "I am either a junior or senior in college." What I said in response is logically true even though I am not a junior. Or, let's say today is Wednesday. Someone asks what day it is. I say "It's either Wednesday or Thursday." That is a true statement, even though it's not Thursday.

So returning to answer choice (E), if the author's point is that the Nicaraguan pines were produced by controlled burning, then wouldn't the author logically HAVE TO AGREE that the fires could have been created by controlled burning or natural fires? Even if they weren't created by controlled burning, they were created by natural fires. So in the same sense that "I am a junior or senior" is true even if I am only a senior, "Created by controlled burning or natural fires" must be true even if it's just controlled burning. Why is this analysis wrong?

Does it have anything to do with the "could have been created by either" aspect of the answer choice? Some might think that the answer choice is not using "or" in the exact same way as "I am a junior or senior", because whereas that statement is equivalent to asserting that "I am at least one of the following things: junior or senior", the claim that the pines "could have been created by either natural fires or controlled burning" is asserting that both parts of the OR are definitely potential explanations, rather than the idea that "at least one of these explanations is correct". Is that what explains why (E) is wrong? If so, can someone elaborate on the grammatical or contextual rules governing the meaning of "or" in this situation?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-38-section-3-passage-1-questions/

Hello,

I have been really struggling to get a grasp over Logic Games. I sat the LSAT in September and completely messed up everything related to LG. So I have two questions, any advice would be awesome :)

How do you avoid freezing/having a mental blank that completely ruins the whole section? AND

Any tips to make sure that you have made all possible inferences when drawing up your game board?

Thanks and good luck!

Josh

Hello 7Sagers!

I'm going through the core curriculum a second time, and I have a question about the negation of and/or statements in conditional relationship! If, for example, we have a statement that reads "If Kay sing, Justin and Tommy sing also" we would diagram this as

K------> J and T (with a split arrow)

My question is, if we are doing a logical reasoning problem, and say an answer choice draws a conclusion that Kay doesn't sing...in order to prove that Kay in fact doesn't sing (i.e. deny the sufficient) we need to also deny the necessary in order for the sufficient to be denied. My question is, if ONE of the conditions in the necessary if failed (Justin not singing for example) is that enough to then contrapose back and say that Kay didn't sing? Or do both conditions (Justin and Tommy not singing) need to be failed?

Similarly, if we have the statement "If Kay sings, Justin or Tommy sing also" and we conclude again that Kay doesn't sing, in order to prove that would be need BOTH Justin and Tommy not to sing, or is it enough for just one of them not to sing, in order to say that Kay didn't?

I hope that makes sense! I believe I know what the answers to these questions are but I just wanted to see if anyone could provide me with an additional explanation !

Hi, I am facing difficulty in a particular type of Logical Reasoning question which asks to identify the correct inference of a passage and where one of the answer choices is a conclusion.I have a confusion to identify which one is a conclusion and which one is an inference. Can anyone explain what is the difference between Inference and Conclusion?