Hi all!

In the phrase "It is the national government that must save the environment"

Why is it that "save the environment" is not the necessary condition?

and rather

"save the environment -> national government" is the correct logical translation to this sentence ??

Intuitively I can understand why,

but it would help greatly to hear a clear explanation of the usage of "must" in this sentence

Thanks in advance!

Anyone experts want to give away their secrets? These types are my downfall - or at least, one of them...

Hi Everyone,

Currently, I'm completing the full 7Sage course. I am now on the logic "lawgic" portion of the lesson. When I look at my study schedule/syllabus, however, I see that practice tests are not on there until I have completed everything else. Is this correct? Should I add in some practice tests between some lessons or at least sections (LR, LG, RC)? I feel like I will lose everything I learned if I wait to actually apply it. What are your thoughts? Thanks!

do you guys watch all of JY's LG videos for every single logic game you do? Even for LG's that you got right under the estimated amount of time? Would love to hear any thoughts/advice/pros/cons. thanks so much.

In this strengthening question, the conclusion that most universities offer a cosmopolitan and in depth education is supported by the premise that most universities have history departments utilizing more culturally diverse and complete textbooks. The correct answer essentially says that the cultural inclusivity of a university’s history textbook is a strong indication of how in depth and cosmopolitan that university’s education is.

My question is how do we know that this strengthens the argument? After all, it is possible that this could mean that universities with more culturally inclusive textbooks have a less in depth and cosmopolitan education. The correct answer only tells as that there is a correlation, but it does not say what direction that correlation goes in. Thanks in advance for the help.

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-60-section-1-question-11/

One that, "appeals to a premise one would accept only if one already accepted the truth of the conclusion." I know there is a circularity in it, but can someone give an example, in non-abstract lsat language for me? That would be amazing lol thanks!!!!!!!

So I’m new to LG and I got stuck up on a particular game during one of the sequencing games problem sets. How much time should I spend trying to figure it out? Or should I just go to the video explanation of that particular game if I’m really that stumped? I just don’t want to waste any unecessary time and/or instill any bad habits when learning LG.

On 7Sage and other blogs/podcasts, I have been hearing a ton of people getting nervous about the July test date due to the fact that it is non-disclosed AND a brand new "experimental" test date. It seems many people are fearful that this will somehow make the test slightly different or more challenging than the other test dates.

I beg everyone to please remember: THE LSAT AND LSAC ARE DESIGNED FOR UNIFORMITY. If LSAC were to put out an official test that was somehow different than any of the others, or is expected to possibly wield different results, then LSAC would be failing as an institution.

It is LSAC's primary job to be a reliable source for law schools vetting students. If law schools believe that the students they are vetting had taken incomparable tests, then that vetting process would be completely ruined.

Sincerely,

I'm Losing My Mind

Admin note: edited title (Sorry, no all caps!)

Hey all,

I've been going through lots of RC passages lately and I'm noticing that I do significantly worse on passages that discuss my field of study. I tend to get absorbed in the details and miss a lot of the big picture questions. I usually go about -1 on most passages but on these passages I perform wayyy worse. Anyone else have similar experiences, or any suggestions?

I am only a 1/3 done with the CC at this point and am really concerned I won't be prepared for the June LSAT.

However, since this is the first year the July LSAT is being administered, and it is a non-disclosed test, I am also weary of taking my chances on a completely "experimental" test date. At the same time, I am unsure about the September LSAT cutting it too close to the early decision deadline for my top law school in November. This will also be my first time taking the LSAT.

I want to score really well for scholarships and I fully intend to apply this fall for SY 2019 (I went straight to my Masters after UG and graduated last spring and worked on a fellowship since. I am ready to move on in my career and go to law school so I can finally practice what I've been studying for).

Should I just go for June and retake in September if needed, or prepare longer and take my chances in July or September?

Looking forward to hearing your opinions!

I'm looking at the question stimulus and one of the wrong answers and wondering if these two mean exactly the same thing:

"Not all skilled artists are famous"

"Some skilled artists are not famous"

And if so.. could someone kindly explain the logic behind it?

Here are my thoughts so far:

I understand that Not all ranges from (0-99)

and that Some (1-100) but since it is Some..not (subtracting from 100 range, (100-100), (100-1) --> (0,99)?)

so.. number wise.. they seem to indicate the exact same range?

Any tips in general? Also, is there a file like the LG PT 1-35 packet but except for RC 1-35?

Hey, everyone.

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on why the passage supports D more strongly than E. I ended up going with D on the test, but didn't feel like I had an articulable justification for why it was a better choice.

The one thing I can think of is that the existence of a hole in the ozone somewhere other than above Antarctica (and perhaps one even larger than the one over Antarctica) is technically compatible with everything in the passage. Since the passage doesn't rule this out, the passage shouldn't be read as supporting any claims about the relative quantity upward flow of CFCs into the stratosphere above Antarctica.

An issue that made me hesitant about D: The passage indicates that the ozone layer would continue to deteriorate for years or decades even if CFC emission were eliminated immediately and completely. So any lowering of the incidence of skin cancer from such a policy would be very delayed. Maybe this consideration is sort of a trap - it doesn't make the answer choice any less supported by the passage, but does make it somehow intuitively less appealing.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-78-section-4-passage-4-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-78-section-4-passage-4-questions/

Hey all,

I know for many question stems, especially flaw Q's, the answer choices begins with "takes for granted."

For these type of answer choices, can we apply the negation test and see if it destroys the argument? The question type is not a strict "Necessary Assumption" question, but the answer choices are phrased as "Takes for granted"/assumptions, so can we treat them as similar to how we treat a necessary assumption answer choice -- and negate them?

Thanks.

Hi ya'll.

Does anyone have a breakdown explanation of this question?

It's a "main conclusion" question and I just can't quite figure out how the correct answer is E or the breakdown of the conclusion.

Thank you thank you!

Chloe

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-44-section-2-question-16/

Hi all,

I recently jumped from doing PTs in the 40s to PTs in the 70s in preparation of the June exam. What I've noticed is that the LR sections in the 70s seem to contain a lot more 'odd-ball' argument forms. Because I've never encountered these argument forms before, it seems the only way I can get these correct is through P.O.E., and this is too unreliable for my tastes. Has anyone compiled a list of these argument forms?

I'll offer a few examples to illustrate what I'm talking about. Potential Spoilers below for PTs in the 70s

PT76 S2 Q13 - This MBT question has no inferences to be made, the correct AC is just a restatement of the stimulus. Weird!

PT76 S2 Q18 - This is a NA question in an argument-by-analogy form.. again.. really weird!

PT76 S2 Q22 - Really bizarre SA question that uses a 'tautology' argument form.

PT76 S2 Q24 - Another NA question with a weird "A-->absurd" argument form.

That's 4 really bizarre question in a single section! Am I crazy for thinking that 70s LR is really quite different from LR in the 40s?

Any help for these weird argument forms would be so dearly appreciated, lol.

Hey all

I've had some trouble with this LR question.

When I did this problem, I think I mistakenly diagrammed one of the premises as: Feeling of insensibility --most--> sphere of family and friendship.

Can someone explain how this is properly diagrammed?

I think @akistotle wrote a really great answer explanation. -- which helped clear things up a little bit. With respect to this "shift in domain," this is my first time seeing it ( I got tricked into diagramming this as just a most arrow btw "can feel needed" and "sphere of family and friends"). How often does this happen? What other LR questions also test this "shift in domain"? Thanks.

"Cookie Cutter Review

MSS; Lawgic, shift in the domain, pushing out an inference

(1) [Domain: All people]

Happy –> Feel Needed

(2) [Domain: Most people]

Can Feel Needed –> Sphere of Family and Friends

*(1) is applied to most people.

Can Be Happy –> Can Feel Needed –> Sphere of Family and Friends"

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-45-section-4-question-16/

Hey all

hope all is well. I heard sages like @"Jonathan Wang" advocate for watching all the JY LR video explanations for each question after doing an LR section. I think the logic is that you can always learn more from each question (sometimes you may have even gotten a question right for the wrong reason), and it also helps to reinforce the reasoning that you initially thought you knew.

For me, I've mostly watched JY's video explanations for questions I got wrong and question I wasn't sure about (like 60% confidence) but still got right. Quick question: should I watch JY's video explanations for questions I was pretty also sure about ? In other words, should I try watching all 26 LR video explanations for each LR section?

For some background: for each LR section, I am averaging a -5 timed and -2 after blind review.

Thanks!

Hi all,

I finished the CC a little while ago and I score a 172 (178 BR) on my first PT after finishing the CC. That was very encouraging because my goal is 175. However, I haven't been able to replicate those results since. I've scored a 161 (174 BR), 163 (167 BR), and 166 (172 BR).

I know that I haven't taken many PTs yet, but I'd like to take the June test, and these latest results are making me a tad nervous.

Is this just a matter of continuing to take PT's and BR'ing carefully?

Can someone who's dealt with a similar situation let me know how they dealt with it?

Thanks so much to anyone who can give me some advice.

Hi there,

SO I took the LSAT last June, did alright, actually have been accepted to schools and have accepted an offer to a school. My school is now paying for me to take the LSAT again so I am able to have the best possible score I am able to achieve. Better for their numbers, and they have incentivized it for me as well, pending my score increases by even just one point.

I took an LSAT prep class last spring in preparation for my first go at the LSAT (of course at the time, did not think I would ever in my right mind volunteer to take it again). Ultimately, I'm trying to find the best suggested way for a refresher course, without trying to spend 90 hours a week entirely completing this course. I just am at a loss for what I should be prioritizing my time with as I have basically exactly one month from today to prepare.

I had originally thought I would just sift through the different lessons and attempt to complete all of the ones that stuck out to me as relevant or that I thought would be more beneficial than others (which for the record, I'm sure that this course is ALL very helpful, and I don't mean to say any one lesson is more important than the next. I also understand for the best results, it's probably best to have sufficient time to finish the entire course... I'm just not working with that situation).

Does anyone have suggestions for where to start in order to refresh myself and be best prepared for a second shot at the LSAT? How should I prioritize my time to get the best bang for my buck, so to speak? Any information or advice would be so welcome as I feel like I'm drowning in lots and lots of LSAT material with no direction. Thank you all so much in advance!

P.S. I so wish I knew about this course a couple years ago when I was first studying for the LSAT... this site is crazy cool.

Got a bunch of messages from another thread requesting the LG spreadsheet I use. Here's a download link for it. It has room for all of the tests, PTs 1-83.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1vtJeqvQRCYVZejcXU10u9BRgbnkdkmKq?usp=sharing

After advice from here, I cut down the number of PTs I took and started working more on drilling and BR, but improvements have been minimal and feel tenuous. Are there any tips to BR I could try? Should I try doing more timed sections, or maybe go back and read over the curriculum sections for the questions types that I seem to be consistently missing? I've been studying for a while and I'm pressed for time, and I want to put in my all before I take the test next month. Any advice would be much appreciated.

#help!!!

So I desperately want to get a 170+ on my test. I signed up for the June LSAT and the deadline to move it to July is coming up this Tuesday. Currently I am averaging 166.8 (to be precise) on my 5 section PTs. I am trying to take two a week and as I work full time and try to study also during the week, I think I'm burning out a bit. I am also afraid that I am burning through PTs to my own detriment (I am already up to PT 75 and I don't want to waste them, so I've been going back to the 50s a bit for the meantime. I've already done 60s-75 and I've done some of the 40s. I also have been told that doing earlier ones is a bit pointless, because they're so different from the current ones.) I feel like I need to go back and restudy the fundamentals. I just purchased the LSAT Trainer to do just that, and was thinking of going back to doing 1 PT a week again. Obviously I will also continue to study during the week as well (which includes doing a few timed sections a week, which I try to take from the earlier PTs since I feel like it doesn't matter as much for practice). Do you think it would behoove me to switch my test date to July? Or should I try to cram everything in and just study like crazy this month? Also, do you think it's even possible to ensure a 170+ by July or would it be more realistic to switch it with a September date?

Any input would be seriously helpful and thank you for your advice in advance!!!!!

This may be something obvious to a lot of people, and may be something subconsciously obvious to me, but nevertheless it’s something that today I noticed and paused to think about.

On a specific flaw question that asks you to identify an error in the reasoning (not sure if I’m allowed to discuss specific questions as a free user), I noticed that there were two sets of reasons that the author gave to support their argument. The first seemed legitimate, the second a clear error. In situations like this, do you accept the first reason as legitimate but then take issue with the second reason? I think I know that the answer is yes, but I’m still curious to hear what people have to say/think, and if people separate sets of reasonings like how I just did above. For curiosity’s sake.

Thanks.

I just upgraded to Ultimate plus, looking for advice.