How important is learning these forms? Is the point that it will help save time on the test by identifying these common forms? I ask because when I read the English part, it makes sense to me, but the lawgic part has me lost, meaning I will have to spend a good amount of time drilling these.

Could somebody explain and provide me with an example of the flaw described below?

" Something that is merely a matter of opinion is treated as if it were subject to verification as a matter of fact".

I already took the test in Dec 2017 and scored much worse than my PT average.

I have registered for June and I have 25 more days until test date. Currently, I am not PT-ing where I'd like. Considering I have 25 more days to prepare, should I prepare and take the test anyway? If I do not score at my target score, how badly would 3 takes reflect on my profile and rob me of my chances for admissions and financial aid considerations. I am currently 10 points below my target score.

In other words, I am also asking, how bad do multiple takes essentially look on the application? I am an international student i.e. no LSDAS GPA. And my evaluation maybe average or above average.

My goal is to apply for the 2019 cycle regardless.

I do not have the July option as it is not offered in Asia.

Please advice.

Admin note: changed 2018 to 2017 (Dec 2018 test is in the future)

Hey guys, I noticed I often have trouble deciphering the tones of the author or different groups in the texts, and have no idea how to improve this. Is it just exposure? Does anyone have tips to improve this? My RC SUCKS sometimes and it’s very discouraging.

Hi. I'm stuck in question 13 of PT 50 section 1's second reading passage.

This question asks to most weaken the author's arg against harsh punishment for debtors. My choice was D, because I thought D weakens author's arg by giving an example where harsh punishment has nothing to do with local economy (at least it doesn't hinder the growth of the local economy) therefore the harsh punishment should be continued.

However the correct answer is E. The moment I read E, I knew that could work. But because E sounded too broad ( "greater economic health..." ) I chose D.

Why is E the answer? Does anyone know why?

Here is 7sage link to the questions:

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-50-section-1-passage-2-questions/

So I’m about to finish LG CC and have put time in doing FP and what not, about to transition into studying RC. I spent a good amount of time in LR and I feel like a fair amount of LR will translate to RC in some capacity, however, I understand that for many people timing is their biggest issue with RC. What were your hurdles/shortcomings for RC? Anything I should look out for? And super-secret tips/tricks? Thanks!

If you're taking the LSAT and your account is inconveniently set to expire a few days before the test date, you can get a free 14-day extension from this page: https://classic.7sage.com/free-extension/

For those of you who are expiring after, good luck on the LSAT! We here at 7Sage are rooting for you.

PT 13, Sec. 2, Q26. Does "the only" in answer choice B refer to a necessary, or sufficient condition? Also, what exactly is "the condition" and "phenomenon" in B? Thanks

Admin note: edited title and edited out "#help" *The "#" marks a heading.

Hey guys. So I recently got to the Logic Games section of the CC and needless to say its rough. So I have been doing the Problem Sets, which is only a few but I know I need more work and a ton more Fool Proofing to do. I understand the LG Bundle is only available via the Ultimate + and I wanted to get some peoples opinions on how much that has helped them etc. I'd like to be able to get done with the CC before I start Fool Proofing because of the concepts being so new to me right now and I don't have a grasp on the different kinds of games right now so I'd be watching JY's videos and then fool proofing for most of them and I feel like I wont learn that way. If anyone has any opinion on this matter please let me know. It would be greatly appreciated. Thanks guys.

Hey 7sagers!

I was just wondering if anyone had any tips on how to really understand sufficient and necessary assumption questions . I get what they are supposed to do but I can’t seem to seem the arguments as valid with the correct answer choice for example :the steps I take with the sufficient assumptions is

1.read the question stem

2. Find the con. And premises

3. Try to find the flaw in between the premises and con.

4. Then look for what I think it is in the answer choice .

I’m not sure if this is the best way or not especially for necessary assumption . Are there any other ways I can think about this ? With necessary assumptions I follow all steps except I am not confident when going down to the answer choices .

I’m wondering how do I look at this differently ? Should I take an answer choice one by one with the other premises and see if it sounds correct ? I know it’s supposed to fill the gap but I guess I’m not seeing it fully.

Thanks !

Hey guys, I also recently got approved for testing accommodations for the LSAT which entails 50% additional test time on all multiple choice sections and a 15 minute break after sections 1,2,4,5 and a 30 minute break after section 3. I was wondering your opinion on PT's and problem sets and how I should be doing them with these accommodations. I assume I should take the PT's under these conditions but also am considering "normal" or "a little more time than normal" to give myself plenty of time at the end of each section just in case. Any tips/strategies you would recommend during my practice would be so appreciated. Whether that is giving myself say 5 1/2 minutes to read the passages instead of 4 etc, etc.

Since I am on the logic game section right now I was wondering what you think I should be giving myself time wise to do the problem sets and any other drilling I may do. Whether that be per question or per set etc.

Please let me know how you feel is the best way for me to prepare under these conditions. And also please don't hesitate to ask me for any more details you may need in answering my questions. Thank you very much.

This question has me absolutely stumped. It appears that the critic is introducing a paradox (an inferior-rated restaurant is more popular than a superior-rated one) and reconciles it with the fact that the interior one is more convenient. Obvious gap is answer choice B that a convenient location can increase your popularity (albeit it falls short of comparative popularity with other establishments). I've seen some explanations that the critic is not introducing a paradox at all but rather is simply stating a "discrepancy" - one restaurant is better rated than another - and proceeds to explain it with convenience of location thereby making answer D correct. I am simply at a loss of how to interpret the stimulus this way! Especially given that the critic says it is not "surprising" (ie let's reconcile something that IS suprising).

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-82-section-4-question-21/

I find that in some strengthen/weaken questions, the right answers are some "other consideration" that influence the conclusion, but are irrelevant to premise. Consider this weaken question:

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-26-section-3-question-06/

This phenomenon is also common in "shield" type of NA question. The answers are something that is not talked in the stimulus.

In these case, can we say that, we are not strengthen/weaken the support that premise giving to conclusion, but strengthen/weaken the conclusion independently?

I have some questions about this Q. Some of the information I'm presenting about this question I've only understood after reading forum boards (I don't have access to JYs explanation for this PT) but I still have a question.

Here is some background/how I see the argument:

P: Many people would agree that anyone who opposes higher taxes will make a better leader than someone who supports them.

P: Thompson opposes higher taxes, his opponents support higher taxes

C: Of the ppl running, Thompson will be the best person to lead the nation

So the flaw is an opinion vs. reality flaw; the author presents a view that some people hold and then makes his conclusion based on that opinion.

Therefore the assumption is that either 1) "many people would agree"... these "many people" actually hold the truth which leads me to assumption 2) there is a positive correlation between opposing taxes and being a good leader.

The answer choices I was stuck between:

A) Opposing high taxes isn't a factor contributing to good leadership

b) Being opposed to high taxes isn't sufficient for good leadership

My question:

At first this is how I read it:

Many people would agree [[that anyone who opposes higher taxes will make a better leader than someone who supports them.]]

Conditional: oppose high taxes --> better leader [[subscript - many ppl think this]]

The argument goes on to "satisfy sufficient" and then concludes the necessary condition

But it clearly also reads like a comparative

Many people would agree that anyone who opposes higher taxes will make a better leader than someone who supports them.

So between ppl opposing high taxes vs ppl supporting high taxes, ppl opposing "win" the better leader award lol ...

The confusion I have above (parsing out that statement) is why I have so much trouble still understanding the relationship between the two answer choices. Can someone explain to me, based on the confusion I have above, why A is right and B is wrong. Also, when a comparative also reads like a conditional what do you do??

Thank you, I hope that all made sense! Let me know if you need me to clarify... I'm very in and out with my understanding of this question and would love some help (3(/p)

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-80-section-1-question-19/

Admin note: added link

Can anyone help me understand why answer choice C is incorrect? I have tried to understand JY's reason but I am just not getting it. Thanks. BTW the correct answer choice was A.

Admin note: edited title and added link

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-25-section-2-question-22/

Hi all-

I started studying for the LSAT in February, and had been making improvements until I plateaued on the last four PTs. On average, I miss about 10 questions on LR in total, and this is where I can make up my most ground. I feel like I am understanding it in untimed work, but when I go to the test my brain just says "seems right enough" and I move on. Does anyone have any suggestions for getting over a plateau, with regards to LR? Especially necessary questions, and questions from 18-23.

Thank you!

I just watched a LG explanation video for a game that JY described as being hard and taking around 12 minutes. It was the first logic game. I am not proficient with logic games yet and under timed pressure I know I would spend the whole 35 minutes on a difficult game. I would like to do easier games first and then come back to a harder game. Any thoughts on how to recognize what increases the difficulty of a game. I know it's not an ideal strategy. I don't want to have to skip a game at all, but if it comes down to it, I would rather get 3 simpler games done right rather than waste too much time on a hard game up front. Thanks for your thoughts.

Can any grammar geeks out there please explain how the sentence structure of answer choice B works? How do I know that "that species" is referring to the bacterial species and not to the antibiotic species? I understand that species inherently means something alive and perhaps I am being naive in assuming antibiotics can mean alive as it's name implies death of living things. However, on a purely grammatical level, the subject of the sentence is seemingly the antibiotics so anything coming after a comma that comes after the introduction to the subject should thus be talking about the subject. Am I off about this?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-62-section-4-question-11/

Admin note: link added

Can somebody explain to me why the answer is (d) and not (b)? This one seems to be very difficult for me to figure out on my own.

Thanks a lot!

Admin note: edited title

So I'm new to LG -- I've already done the first section regarding sequencing games, and I've foolproofed all 10 problem sets from that first section. I feel like I've got that down; then I moved onto to sequencing games w/ a twist (and double sequencing games) and whenever I come across a new game for the first time in the problem set, it takes me longer than it should (usually 3-5 mins) to get the game board set up, and then takes me a while to solve it.

I understand that through practicing and foolproofing that I can finish the game correctly in the target time it should take, however, I'm just getting really discouraged because I feel like I have to keep watching the video explanation for EVERY single game just to get it down.

I feel like at some point I should start to be able to solve these games on my own without needing to watch the video explanations.

When did you guys get to the point that you could come across a new game and solve it efficiently? I know I'm just starting out, but it's just tough when it keeps taking me longer than it should to get the games solved. Any success stories?

Hello 7sagers.

So wondering if I should be approaching these 5 star questions differently. I recently took a PT where I missed 5 LR questions and all of them were 5 star questions, (Weaken, Strengthen, Parallel, Flaw, AP) so, I decided to start by drilling some of the 5 star strengthen questions and I got like 10 wrong in a row.

What should be my strategy going forward here? Go back to the CC?

Is there something you think specificially about 5 star questions that help you get them better?

Or should I not even be focusing on the difficulty of the questions and just focus on the type of questions I'm having difficulty with.

Thanks

Hey all,

I've noticed a trend where I feel that almost all answer choices with the word "many" or "some" are WRONG in weaken questions. I think the general reason for this is that because "many/some" can mean as little as 1, it's very hard to weaken an argument with just one instance of something.

Can anyone confirm this trend for me, or have any thoughts/comments/advice? Does anyone also have an example where this is not the case -- where an answer choice with the word "some/many" is actually the right answer choice for a weaken question?

Also, I'm curious to hear your thoughts for RC weaken questions. Does this trend also hold true?

Thank you!

I just finished PT 47 and got -10 in section 3, LR. -3 on the other LR section. Having study for LSAT for a year.

It is simply so discouraging that I still get -10 in an LR section after studying for a year and ton of drill. Especially that LR is the section that I spent most of my energy on, because it has 2 sections in the exam and it is almost impossible for me to get 170+ with -3/-4 per section. (-0 in LG but not strong in RC)

-10 is not normal performance for me. Most common performance for me is around -4/-5/ per section. But, in a set of PT, I often have a good LR section (~-3) and a bad one (~-8). Sometimes I do pretty well when I thought I was not in good mood (e.g. feeling sleepy at night), and sometimes I do pretty bad when I thought I was in good shape. I don't quite understand what my performance is telling.

For timing, I finish a 26-qiestion LR section for 30-35min (yes my speed also fluctuate). I always try to apply "low-hang coconut" rule, but I never finished quick enough to have a full 2nd round, and I still feel stressed on the 2nd round. Plus, most of my errors hide in the questions that I did not circled.

For the questions I got wrong, I can recognize the error of 90%+ of them pretty quick and without watching explain videos. I think the problem is not that my logic is weak, but my mindset/approach to the questions is problematic. As to question type, I do worse in argument-type questions, and better in RRE/Disagree/labeling questions.

I think I am on a changing in my understanding of argument-type questions. I used to seriously read every single word in the questions stimulus, try to understand the topic. But a week ago I start to realize that what really matter is the relationship between P & C. It's all about logic reasoning structure. But I haven't convert this understanding into a test strategy. Should I go on PTs or should I do some drill? (for the question from PT 40 or earlier, I am so familiar with them that I almost remember them...) Would love to hear some advices from somebody that have gone though the process.

Thanks a lot in advance!! :)

Have you done this problem? I'm seeking justification for the correct answer choice.

It would be great to have JY analyze it in a video.

Hey all,

so i hear of ppl who for RC comparative passage, they first scan the answers and see if there are specific questions that relate only to ONE passage. they then read that ONE passage, and then do the questions for that passage also.

Then, they read the second passage and finish the rest of the questions.

Question: what is your strategy for RC comparative? Do you read both passages back to back? or do you first glance at the questions, see if there are any questions that only address one passage (sometimes i know all the questions address both passages), and then just read one passage first and then do the questions?

Thanks.